Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petitioner, a proprietary concern, was the tenant, and the respondent, a private limited company, claimed to be the landlord after purchasing the petition premises from the administrators of the admitted owner. The respondent issued a notice stating that the property was required for demolition and reconstruction and alleged that the tenant denied title and did not pay rents; however, the notice was not served. The respondent then filed R.C.O.P. No.936 of 2014 seeking eviction on three grounds: willful default in payment of rent, denial of title, and demolition and reconstruction. The tenant resisted, contending there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, that the superstructure was put up by his father, and that he had already filed a suit before the Original Side of the High Court to protect possession, in which an interim injunction was granted and the sale deed in favour of the respondent was challenged through a pending amendment application. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on all three grounds on 21.04.2025. The tenant's appeal, R.C.A. No.21 of 2025, was dismissed on 07.04.2026 by the IX Small Cause Court, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), affirming the eviction order. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present revision petition. Before the High Court, the tenant argued that the eviction on the ground of denial of title was erroneous because a prior suit challenging title was pending and an interim blanket injunction protected possession; the denial was not malafide. He further argued that the pre-suit notice did not contain a demand for rent or specify the amount, so willful default could not be established. On demolition and reconstruction, the tenant contended that the landlord failed to identify whether the occupied portion fell within the 540 sq.ft purchased area in a 1.4-acre land and that only a certified copy of the sale deed, not the original, was produced. The tenant also challenged the admissibility of the certified copy and the burden of proof. The respondent landlord argued that rent control proceedings are summary in nature and that a certified copy of the sale deed is primary evidence, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Appaya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others, (2024) 19 SCC 602. The tenant relied on numerous decisions, including Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan, 2026 INSC 134, and others, on title, burden of proof, and production of documents. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 16.07.2026. The provided text did not include the final decision or operative order, so the outcome of the revision petition and the court's final reasoning could not be determined from the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Denial of Title - Eviction on ground of denial of title requires absence of bona fide title dispute - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 - Tenant contended that a prior civil suit challenging the landlord's title was pending and an interim injunction protected possession, so the denial was not malafide and eviction should not have been ordered. The court heard arguments on whether the landlord had to establish title and jural relationship before seeking eviction. (Paras 6-8, 11-12)
B) Landlord and Tenant - Willful Default - Requirement of valid demand before alleging default - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 - Tenant argued that the pre-suit notice did not call upon him to pay rent or specify the rent payable; therefore, willful default could not be attributed. The court considered whether absence of demand negated willful default. (Para 9)
C) Landlord and Tenant - Demolition and Reconstruction - Landlord must establish ownership and identify premises - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 - Tenant challenged the ground by arguing that the landlord failed to identify whether the occupied portion fell within the 540 sq.ft allegedly purchased area on a 1.4-acre land and produced only a certified copy of the sale deed. The court considered whether the landlord discharged the burden of proof. (Paras 10-11)
D) Evidence - Primary Evidence - Certified copy of sale deed - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 and Section 65 - Tenant objected to production of a certified copy instead of the original sale deed and contended no reason was given for non-production; respondent argued certified copy is primary evidence. The court considered admissibility and the burden to prove title. (Paras 11, 15)
E) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - Scope of revision under Section 25 - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 - Revision petitioner argued that concurrent findings by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were perverse and lacked reasoning, seeking interference. The court noted submissions on the limited revisional jurisdiction over factual findings. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
F) Civil Procedure - Pending Suit and Interim Order - Rent Controller jurisdiction when title dispute pending - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 25 - Tenant contended that because a suit was pending before the Original Side and an interim blanket injunction was granted, the Rent Controller ought not to have entertained eviction. The court considered whether summary proceedings could proceed during title litigation. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority correctly ordered eviction on grounds of willful default, denial of title, and demolition and reconstruction; whether the tenant's prior civil suit challenging title and interim protection barred eviction proceedings; whether the landlord discharged the burden of proving title and landlord-tenant relationship; and whether the certified copy of the sale deed was admissible and sufficient evidence.
Law Points
- landlord-tenant relationship
- denial of title
- willful default
- demolition and reconstruction
- certified copy of sale deed
- burden of proof
- primary evidence
- concurrent findings
- revision jurisdiction
- pending suit and interim order
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 31
CRP No.3833 of 2026 and CMP No.16707 of 2026
Mr. Madhan Babu for petitioner; Mrs. Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar for respondent
M/s. Chemicals India, represented by its Proprietor Mr. V. Sundar
M/s. Vicoans Infrastructure and Environment Engineering Private Limited, represented by its Director Mr. T. Selvamani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority on grounds of willful default, denial of title, and demolition and reconstruction.
Remedy Sought
Revision petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the order and decree dated 07.04.2026 in R.C.A. No.21 of 2025 confirming the eviction order dated 21.04.2025 in R.C.O.P. No.936 of 2014, and to allow the civil revision petition.
Filing Reason
Respondent landlord filed eviction petition claiming purchase of premises and alleging willful default, denial of title, and requirement for demolition and reconstruction; tenant contested, denying landlord-tenant relationship and challenging title through prior civil suit; after adverse concurrent orders, tenant filed revision.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller (XII Small Cause Court, Chennai) in R.C.O.P. No.936 of 2014 ordered eviction on all three grounds on 21.04.2025. Rent Control Appellate Authority (IX Small Cause Court, Chennai) dismissed R.C.A. No.21 of 2025 on 07.04.2026, affirming the eviction order.
Issues
Whether eviction on the ground of denial of title was justified when the tenant had filed a prior civil suit challenging the landlord's title and obtained interim protection.
Whether the respondent landlord established title and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
Whether the pre-suit notice constituted a valid demand for rent such that willful default could be established.
Whether the ground of demolition and reconstruction was made out when the landlord failed to identify the tenant's specific portion within the purchased area.
Whether a certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as primary evidence and sufficient to prove title.
Whether the Rent Controller could entertain eviction proceedings when a title dispute was pending in a civil court and an interim injunction was granted.
Whether the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner tenant argued that eviction on denial of title was erroneous because a prior suit challenging title was pending and an interim blanket injunction protected possession; denial was not malafide.
Petitioner contended that the respondent landlord had to establish title and landlord-tenant relationship, invoking Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Petitioner argued that the pre-suit notice did not call upon him to pay rent or specify the rent payable, so willful default could not be attributed.
Petitioner submitted that the ground of demolition and reconstruction was not made out because the landlord failed to identify whether the occupied portion fell within the 540 sq.ft purchased area on a 1.4-acre land and produced only a certified copy of the sale deed.
Petitioner objected to the admissibility of the certified copy of the sale deed and contended no reason was given for non-production of the original.
Petitioner asserted that the concurrent findings by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were perverse and lacked reasons, warranting interference under Section 25.
Respondent landlord argued that rent control proceedings are summary in nature and do not require a roving enquiry like a civil suit.
Respondent argued that a certified copy of the sale deed is primary evidence, relying on Appaya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others, (2024) 19 SCC 602.
Judgment Excerpts
The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner.
The respondent claiming to have purchased the petition premises, in and by a registered sale deed, from the administrators of the then admitted owner Meera Bai Dawson, had issued notice to the revision petitioner, stating that the respondent required the property for purposes of demolition and reconstruction and that despite knowing the fact that the respondent had purchased the property, the petitioner has denied his title and also not paid rents.
The said eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner, contending that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner and that the superstructure was put up by the father of the revision petitioner.
Mr.Madhan Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would firstly contend that when the petitioner had filed a suit before the Original Side of this Court even one year earlier than the filing of the eviction petition, claiming independent rights to the subject property, the Courts below have clearly fell in error in holding that there has been a denial of title, warranting an order of eviction.
Procedural History
Respondent landlord claimed to have purchased the petition premises by registered sale deed from administrators of Meera Bai Dawson and issued a notice stating property required for demolition and reconstruction. Notice was not served. Respondent filed R.C.O.P. No.936 of 2014 before XII Small Cause Court, Chennai (Rent Controller) seeking eviction on grounds of willful default, denial of title, and demolition and reconstruction. Revision petitioner tenant resisted, denying landlord-tenant relationship, asserting superstructure was put up by his father, and stating he had filed a prior suit before the Original Side of the High Court to protect possession, where interim injunction was granted and the sale deed was challenged by pending amendment application. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on all three grounds on 21.04.2025. The tenant filed R.C.A. No.21 of 2025 before IX Small Cause Court, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), which dismissed the appeal on 07.04.2026, affirming the eviction order. The tenant then filed the present civil revision petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court reserved judgment on 16.07.2026 and pronounced it on 07.08.2026. The provided text did not include the final operative decision.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Section 25
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 101
