High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Petition Against Order of Rejection of Plaint. The court confirmed that the relief sought by the landlords was not barred under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the dismissal of an application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner, a tenant, contested the suit filed by the landlords, arguing that the claims were barred by the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (the Act) due to previous eviction proceedings. The landlords had filed an eviction petition, which resulted in an order for eviction, but their claim for double rent was not granted. Subsequently, they filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,74,237/- towards arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner contended that since the Rent Control Court had not granted the claim for double rent, the landlords could not pursue further relief in a civil suit. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 23 and 40, and concluded that the relief sought by the landlords was not covered under the Act, thus allowing the civil suit to proceed. The court confirmed the lower court's order rejecting the application for plaint rejection, stating that the order did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the order of the VII Additional City Civil Court was upheld.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Grounds for Rejection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds that the relief sought was barred by law due to prior proceedings in the Rent Control Court. The court held that the relief sought was not covered under the provisions of the Act, allowing the civil suit to proceed (Paras 10-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suit filed by the respondents/landlord is barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and upheld the order of the VII Additional City Civil Court, confirming that the relief sought by the landlords was not barred under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

Law Points

  • Civil Revision Petition
  • Order VII Rule 11
  • Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act
  • 2017
  • jurisdiction of Rent Court
  • statutory remedies
  • eviction proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (09) 133

CRP No. 5275 of 2026

2026-09-17

N. Anand Venkatesh

Mr.Ravi Raja Bappu, R.Akash, Mr.R.Gokul, Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam

M/s.Chennai Motorss

V.J.Chandira Gupta, V.J.Ramanujlu, V.J.Chinne Krishna

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for rejection of plaint.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the order rejecting the application for rejection of plaint.

Filing Reason

The petitioner argued that the relief sought by the landlords was barred by law due to prior proceedings.

Previous Decisions

The Rent Control Court had previously dismissed the claim for double rent.

Issues

Whether the suit filed by the respondents/landlord is barred by the provisions of the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the relief sought was barred by law due to prior proceedings in the Rent Control Court. The respondents contended that the civil suit for recovery of arrears and damages was valid and not barred under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once a landlord or tenant resorts to the specific relief provided under the Act, they cannot approach a Civil Court for such relief, as per Sections 37(9) and 40(1) of the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner is that Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 specifically provides a remedy to the landlord to seek for double the monthly rent. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the dismissal of an application for rejection of plaint in OS.No.7089 of 2023, which was filed by the respondents seeking recovery of arrears of rent and damages.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order VII Rule 11
  • Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017: Section 23, Section 37(9), Section 40(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Application to Quash Process in Section 138 NI Act Case Against Partners of Accused Firm. Complaint's Averments That Partners Were in Charge of and Responsible for Conduct of Business Satisfied Section 141 NI Act, Negating Claim ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Promotion Criteria for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Due to Lack of Candidates. Eligibility Requirement for Promotion through LDCE Reduced from 10 Years to 7 Years to Enhance Opportunities for Judicial Officers.