Dismissed¶36

The General Manager/ The Administator v. K.R.balasubramanian

Eviction – Bona fide requirement

Madras HC22 Jun 2026CRP/3393/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP No. 3393 of 2026 and CMP No. 14753 of 2026, decided 22-06-2026 by T.V.Thamilselvi J. Tenant (Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Soceity Ltd., Puducherry) challenged concurrent eviction orders based on the landlords' bona fide requirement under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; revision dismissed; four months' time to vacate granted; no cases cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs; petitioner granted four (4) months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶36

The General Manager/ The Administator Vs K.R.balasubramanian — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 3393 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 14753 OF 2026

¶7

The General Manager/ The Administator Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Soceity Ltd., No.3 Vaigai Street, Vasanth Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

K.R.balasubramanian

¶11

S/o.Late K.V.Radhakrishna Chettiar, Rest.at No.1/23, Apparao Street, Big Kancheepuram.

¶12

2.K.Dhakshayani W/o.Late K.V.Raghupathy, Rest.at No.30-B, Nimandakara Street, Big Kancheepuram.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

To set aside the order dated 17-11-2025 in RCA.No.3 of 2017 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal/Prl.Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 05-11-2016 in RCOP.No.26 of 2013 passed by the Learned Rent Controller Kancheepuram and consequently allow the appeal in RCA.No.3 of 2017 as prayed for.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶19

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶20

For Petitioner(s): MR.R.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Srinivasan For R1 and R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 17-11-2025 in RCA.No.3 of 2017 passed by the Rent Control Appellate

¶23

Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 05-11-2016 in RCOP.No.26 of 2013 passed by the Learned Rent Controller Kancheepuram and consequently allow the appeal in RCA.No.3 of 2017.

¶24

The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 26 of 2013 before the Rent Controller, Kancheepuram, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant and recovery of vacant possession of the petition-mentioned property on the ground of bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation.

¶25

Upon considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the Rent Controller allowed the petition, holding that the landlords' requirement for the premises was genuine and bona fide, and consequently directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred R.C.A. No. 3 of

¶29

2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram. Upon hearing both parties, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

¶30

Challenging the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶32

The respondents/landlords sought eviction of the petitioner on the

¶33

ground that they bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the landlords' requirement is genuine and bona fide. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Considering that the respondents are senior citizens, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. However, taking into account the request made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court grants the petitioner four (4) months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP No. 3393 of 2026

¶36