Nagaraj Vs Subramanian — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nagaraj Vs Subramanian — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with directions and no costs; connected CMP(MD) No.2941 of 2026 closed. On the tenant's filed affidavit of undertaking (recorded by the Court), time granted till 30.09.2026 to vacate and peacefully hand over possession to the landlord, conditional on paying rents without default during the period, clearing any default, and not handing over possession to any third party. The learned District Munsif, Devakottai requested to adjourn E.P.No.11 of 2021 to 05.10.2026: if possession is handed over per the undertaking, to record the handing over and close the Execution Petition; failing which, on 05.10.2026 to pass an order of delivery with orders to break open the locks and for police aid, without waiting for an application by the landlord.

Issue for consideration

Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: whether the High Court may re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the courts below in a rent-control revision. +2 more

Court's answer

While the revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is wider than revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court in revision must not re-appreciate the evidence unless the appreciation by the courts below is ex facie perverse or illegal; per the Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, counsel's request for re-appreciation of evidence cannot be entertained.

Ratio / Principle

A petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act, or even a suit for ejectment before the regular civil court, is not concerned with the issue of title; an issue of title is alien to an eviction proceeding, which is concerned only with whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists and whether the tenant's act attracts any of the mischief prohibited under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.

Key takeaways

Though Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to a rent control proceeding, it ingrains the principle of estoppel and is certainly applicable to a Rent Controller; a tenant who came into possession pursuant to the relationship between the predecessors in title of the landlord and of the tenant falls within the scope of persons claiming through such tenant and is estopped from denying the landlord's title at the inception of the tenancy.ratio¶52
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority applied the correct position of law to the facts; no perversity or illegality is found in their appreciation of evidence, and consequently there is no necessity to entertain the revision.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026, Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, V. Lakshminarayanan, J., 11.03.2026) under Section 25 of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 by the tenant against concurrent orders of eviction — Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.02.2020 in RCOP No.2 of 2017 (Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Devakottai) confirmed by Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.09.2025 in RCA No.1 of 2020 (Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Court, Devakottai) — founded on wilful default in payment of rent under an oral tenancy of Rs.950/- per month with default from July 2015: (i) Per the Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, the revisional power under Section 25, though wider than Section 115 CPC, does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the appreciation below is ex facie perverse or illegal; the request for re-appreciation was declined. (ii) An issue of title is alien to an eviction proceeding — neither a rent-control eviction petition nor even a civil suit for ejectment is concerned with title; the enquiry is confined to the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and whether the tenant's act attracts the mischief prohibited under Section 10 of the Act. (iii) Though Section 116, Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to rent control proceedings, it embodies the principle of estoppel and applies before a Rent Controller; a tenant holding through his predecessors is estopped from denying the landlord's title at the inception of the tenancy. (iv) The tenant neither sought expert examination of the signature in Ex.P16 (rent receipt book) to substantiate his forgery plea nor demonstrated that the default was not wilful; R.W.2's examination did not improve his case. Concurrent findings free from perversity or illegality; revision dismissed with directions: time till 30.09.2026 to vacate and hand over possession on the recorded undertaking (rents to be paid meanwhile, no default, no transfer to third parties); E.P.No.11 of 2021 (District Munsif, Devakottai) adjourned to 05.10.2026 — to be closed on recorded handing over of possession, failing which delivery order with break-open of locks and police aid to issue suo motu. Connected CMP(MD) No.2941 of 2026 closed. No costs.

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026 and CMP(MD) No.2941 of 2026

Nagaraj

... Petitioner

vs.

Subramanian ... Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 25 of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.09.2025 passed in RCA No.1 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Court, Devakottai confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.02.2020 passed in RCOP No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in RCA.No.1 of 2020 dated 23.09.2025, in confirming the

1/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Devakottai in RCOP.No.2 of 2017, dated 05.02.2020.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3.RCOP.No.2 of 2017 was launched by the landlord invoking the provisions of Section 10(2)(i) of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the demised premises belong to the family of one Swaminathan Chettiar. The legal representatives of the said Swaminathan Chettiar were in possession and enjoyment of the same, by leasing it out and recovering rents from the tenants.

4.One Meenatchi Sundaram Chettiar was the predecessor in title of the present landlord. He passed away in the year 2005. Thereafter, his wife, Saraswathi Achi was collecting rents. From 01.04.2009, the landlord started collecting rents. The tenancy was oral. It was agreed that the tenant would pay a monthly rent of Rs. 950/-. Pleading that the tenant had not paid rents from July 2015, he invoked the provision for eviction and filed RCOP.No.2 of 2017.

2/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

5.Summon was served on the tenant and he entered appearance through a counsel. He filed a detailed counter denying the title of the landlord. According to him, the property is a Poramboke land, on which, his grandfather had encroached and constructed the building. As there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he urged that the RCOP is absolutely untenable.

6.On the basis of these pleadings, the parties entered the witness box. On the side of the landlord, he entered the witness box as P.W1. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On the side of the tenant, the tenant examined himself as R.W1 and one Sinthamani was examined as R.W2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 were exhibited by the tenant.

7.Relying upon Ex.P12 and Ex.P16, namely, the sale deed in favour of the predecessor of the landlord as well as the rent receipt book that had been maintained by the landlord, the Rent Controller was convinced that a relationship of landlord and the tenant existed between the parties. As the tenant was not in a position to give a proper explanation for the period of default, the learned Judge concluded that the default not only existed but was willful. Hence, he allowed the petition.

3/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

8.Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred RCA.No.1 of 2020.

On a re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the plea set up by the tenant was not tenable and consequently, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and ordered eviction. Against the said concurrent orders, the present Civil Revision Petition.

9.I heard Mr.C.Jeya Prakash in support of the Revision.

10.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash invited my attention to Ex.R1, namely,

an information that he had secured under the Right to Information Act to the effect that the land on which the building is situated is a Poramboke land and does not belong to the landlord.

11.He further urged that, he had examined RW.2 to substantiate his plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the eviction petition. In addition, he pointed out that the signature of the tenant is not found under Ex.P16 and the same is an act of forgery. Hence, he pleaded that the Revision be admitted and an order of interim stay of eviction be ordered.

4/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

12.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash faces two hurdles. One, on the scope of the Revision itself and the second, on the merits of the case. It has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Dilbahar Singh , (2014)

9 SCC 78 that while the power of Revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is wider than the scope of Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction must not reappreciate the evidence, unless and until, the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is ex facie perverse or illegal. The request of Mr.C.Jeya Prakash that I re-appreciate the evidence cannot be entertained in the light of the categorical declaration of law by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement.

13.Considering the plea that has been raised by Mr.C.Jeya Prakash, I carefully went through the records available before this Court. The tenant had not taken any effort to get the signature in Ex.P16 to be examined by an expert in order to prove that the signature found therein is not his signature. The proceeding before the Rent Controller is a summary proceeding, but this does not bar a tenant, who is confronted with a receipt said to have been issued for

5/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

the tenancy, to take out an appropriate application before the Court to disprove the same. Unfortunately, the tenant had not taken any such steps.

14.Apart from this, a petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act or even a suit for ejectment before the regular civil Court is not concerned with the issue of title. An issue of title is alien to an eviction proceeding. All that the Court is concerned with is, whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant and if it so exists, then, whether the act of the tenant attracts any one of the mischief, which has been prohibited, under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.

15.The allegation of the landlord is that the rents had not been paid. The defense raised by the tenant as already pointed out above is one of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. In addition, it was always open to the tenant to demonstrate before the Court that de hors this plea, he is not liable to be evicted by virtue of the act of default not being wilful. In that aspect too, the tenant has failed to demonstrate before the Court. The examination of RW.2 does not improve the case of the tenant.

6/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

16.As per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, no tenant of an immovable property or any person claiming through such tenant, during the continuance of the tenancy is permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act though not strictly applicable to a Rent Control proceeding, it merely ingrains into itself the principle of estoppel. It would certainly be applicable to a Rent Controller. The tenant, having come into possession of the property pursuant to the relationship that existed between the predecessors in title of the landlord and the predecessors in title of the tenant, falls within the scope of persons claiming through such tenant and therefore, is estopped from denying the title of the landlord at the inception of the tenancy.

17.A perusal of the judgements of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority point out that, they have applied the correct position of law to the facts placed before them. I do not find any perversity or illegality in their appreciation of evidence. Consequently, I do not find any necessity to entertain the Revisions.

18.At this stage, Mr.C.Jeya Prakash reported that the tenant has been in occupation of the property for several decades and in

7/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

case, he is dispossessed from the property, he would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice. I was inclined to grant time on condition, if Mr.C.Jeya Prakash files an affidavit of undertaking of the Civil Revision Petitioner that he would vacate and hand over the possession of the property within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19.Mr.C.Jaya Prakash has filed an affidavit, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:-

8/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

20.The undertaking given in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit is recorded by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitioner is granted time till 30.09.2026 . During the said period, he shall pay the rents without default. He shall also clear the default, if any, pending proceedings. He shall not hand over the possession to any third party and shall peacefully hand over the possession of the property to the landlord on

or before 30.09.2026 .

9/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

21.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash reports that the landlord has already filed an Execution Petition soon after the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller. He states that E.P.No.11 of 2021 is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court at Devakottai.

22.As this Court has granted time to the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession on or before 30.09.2026 , the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, is requested to adjourn the Execution Petition to 05.10.2026 . If the tenant hands over the possession as per his undertaking given to this Court, the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, shall record the handing over of possession and close the Execution Petition. In case, the tenant does not hand over the possession, as per his undertaking, the learned Judge on 05.10.2026, is requested to pass an order of delivery in the Execution Petition and simultaneously grant orders to break open the locks and for police aid. The learned Judge need not wait for an application by the landlord seeking the said reliefs.

10/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

23.The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No

11.03.2026

mm

To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

2.The District Munsif, Devakottai.

11/12

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

mm

C.R.P.(MD) No.631 of 2026

11.03.2026

12/12

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

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: whether the High Court may re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the courts below in a rent-control revision.¶41
The court held
While the revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is wider than revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court in revision must not re-appreciate the evidence unless the appreciation by the courts below is ex facie perverse or illegal; per the Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, counsel's request for re-appreciation of evidence cannot be entertained.ratio¶41
2.
Merits challenge: whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority — existence of landlord-tenant relationship (Ex.P12 sale deed, Ex.P16 rent receipt book) and wilful default — suffer from perversity or illegality, including the tenant's pleas of Poramboke land (RTI response), forged signature in Ex.P16, and testimony of R.W.2.¶53
The court held
A petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act, or even a suit for ejectment before the regular civil court, is not concerned with the issue of title; an issue of title is alien to an eviction proceeding, which is concerned only with whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists and whether the tenant's act attracts any of the mischief prohibited under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.ratio¶47
3.
Whether the tenant, who came into possession through his predecessors in title pursuant to the landlord-tenant relationship, is estopped from denying the landlord's title at the inception of the tenancy (principle underlying Section 116, Indian Evidence Act).¶52
The court held
Though Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable to a rent control proceeding, it ingrains the principle of estoppel and is certainly applicable to a Rent Controller; a tenant who came into possession pursuant to the relationship between the predecessors in title of the landlord and of the tenant falls within the scope of persons claiming through such tenant and is estopped from denying the landlord's title at the inception of the tenancy.ratio¶52