Dismissed¶32

Soundarya v. Rathinam

Madras HC13 Feb 2026CRP(MD)/411/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

civil revision petition Article 227; execution proceedings E.P.No.1 of 2025; RCOP.No.4 of 2012 rent control eviction; premises required for landlord's personal use; RCA reversal of Rent Controller; wilful default; oral lease agreement Rs.3,50,000 monthly rent; simultaneous proceedings bar; O.S. No.173 of 2014 recovery suit decree 14.07.2023; District Munsif Rajapalayam; Principal Munsif cum Rent Control Tribunal Srivilliputhur; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Senthilkumar; dismissed with no costs; connected CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any document establishing the pleaded oral lease, the fact that the revision petitioner has filed a separate suit for recovery of the alleged lease amount will not prevent the execution court from executing the order; simultaneous proceedings are permissible. ¶28

Soundarya Vs Rathinam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether simultaneous proceedings are permissible — i.e., whether the execution court in E.P.No.1 of 2025 could execute the eviction order despite the revision petitioner's plea of an undocumented oral lease and her separate suit (O.S. No.173 of 2014) for recovery of the alleged lease amount.

¶28

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court (the execution court's order in E.P.No.1 of 2025).

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP(MD).No.411 of 2026) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (N.Senthilkumar, J.), decided 13.02.2026 — challenging the fair and decretal order dated 22.01.2026 in E.P.No.1 of 2025 (District Munsif Judge, Rajapalayam) arising from RCOP.No.4 of 2012 (Principal Munsif Judge cum Rent Control Tribunal, Srivilliputhur). Background: landlord's RCOP was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed on appeal (RCA) on the ground that the premises was required for the landlord's personal use; the tenant's claim of an oral lease at Rs.3,50,000/- monthly rent, and her separate suit O.S. No.173 of 2014 (decree in her favour on 14.07.2023), did not stall execution, wherein the execution court recorded wilful default and directed vacating of the premises (order reproduced in Tamil at ¶26). Held: an undocumented plea of oral lease and the existence of a separate suit for recovery of the alleged lease amount will not prevent the execution court from executing the order; simultaneous proceedings are permissible; no infirmity in the execution court's order. Petition dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP(MD).No.1882 of 2026) closed.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.411 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 13.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.411 of 2026 and CMP(MD).No.1882 of 2026

¶7

Soundarya ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Rathinam ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22.01.2026, passed in E.P.No.1 of 2025 on the file of Learned District Munsif Judge, Rajapalayam, in RCOP.No.4 of 2012 on the file of Learned Principal Munsif Judge cum Rent Control Tribunal, Srivilliputhur.

¶11

For Petitioners : Ms.R.Durga Devi

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22.01.2026, passed in E.P.No.1 of 2025 on the file of Learned District Munsif Judge, Rajapalayam, in RCOP.No.4 of 2012 on the file of Learned Principal Munsif Judge cum Rent Control Tribunal, Srivilliputhur.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

CRP(MD). No.411 of 2026

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the premises belonging to the respondent. The respondent/landlord had originally filed R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2012 before the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Srivilliputhur. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had initially denied the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship and claimed that the revision petitioner was in unlawful occupation. A notice dated 12.09.2011 was issued by the landlord, to which the revision petitioner had sent a reply, contending that there existed an oral lease agreement between the parties for a monthly rent for a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. This aspect is reflected in the pleadings in the RCOP proceedings.

¶19

4.The learned counsel further submitted that the RCOP was initially dismissed by the Rent Controller, taking into consideration the oral lease agreement and the documentary evidence produced regarding payment of rent. However, on appeal, in the Rent Control Appeal (RCA), the appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and allowed the petition, holding that the premises was required for the landlord’s personal use.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

CRP(MD). No.411 of 2026

¶23

5.It is also submitted that, with regard to the lease amount allegedly paid,

¶24

the revision petitioner had filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 173 of 2014, in which a decree was passed in favour of the revision petitioner on 14.07.2023. Meanwhile, the respondent/landlord initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No.

¶25

1 of 2025. The execution Court has passed the following Order.

¶26

@kD jgrpy; brhj;jpw;F vjph;kDjhuh; brYj;j ntz;oa thlifia ntz;Lbkd;nw brYj;jhky; wilful default Mf cs;ssjhYk;. kDjhuUf;F kD jgrpy; tPl;il vjph;kDjhuh; 2 khj';fSf;Fs; fhyp bra;J btspnawp kD jgrpy; brhj;jpid kDjhuh; trk; RthjPdk; xg;gilf;f ntz;Lk;/@

¶27

6.As the revision petitioner pleads that there is oral lease agreement and

¶28

in the absence of any document filed to establish the case and separate suit has been filed by the revision petitioner for recovery of that amount will not prevent the execution court to execute the same. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that simultaneous proceedings cannot be allowed, has no merits. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP(MD). No.411 of 2026

¶32