Madras High Court
N.Gunasekaran vs S.N.J.Layabalan on 23 October, 2025
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
and M.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2006 & 1 of 2007
N.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner
(in both cases)
Vs.
1.S.N.J.Layabalan
2.S.N.L.Vetriselvan (died)
3.S.N.L.Manoharan
4.V.Vijayalakshmi
5.V.Ravichandran
6.V.Rama Thilagam
8.V.Mangayarkarasi .. Respondents
(in both cases)
(Respondents 4 to 8 are brought on record as LRS
of the deceased 2nd respondent viz.,
S.N.L.Vetriselvan vide order of this Court dated
02.06.2025 made in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015)
Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1390 of 2006: Civil Revision Petition filed
under Section 25 of the TamilNadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
1960, against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.07.2006 in RCA.No.20
of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvarur (Rent Contral Appellate
Authority) confirming the order dated 22.03.1999 passed by the learned
Rent Control (District Munsif Court), Nanillam.
Prayer in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1391 of 2006: Civil Revision Petition filed
under Section 25 of the TamilNadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act,
1960, against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.06.2006 in I.A.No.8 of
2002 in RCA.No.20 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvarur (Rent
Contral Appellate Authority).
(In both cases):
For Petitioner : Mr.L.G.Sahadevan
For RR 1 & 3 : Insufficient address
For RR 4 to 8 : Ms.Elizabeth
COMMON ORDER
These two revisions were directed to be posted before me along with S.A.No.1001 of 2000, by an order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 01.09.2025.
2.The civil revision petitioner in both the revisions is admittedly the tenant of the petition mentioned premises. He had been put in possession 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006 pursuant to an agreement of lease entered into between one Pushpavalli Ammal, and the civil revision petitioner on 21.03.1987. A monthly rent of Rs.700/- was agreed upon to be paid to Pushpavalli Ammal. Pushpavalli Ammal passed away on 16.06.1990. The landlords / respondents are the sons of Pushpavalli Ammal.
3.Alleging that the tenant had not paid the rents after December, 1991, for over the mandatory period, and claiming Rs.11,900/- as the arrears of unpaid rent till May, 1993, they filed RCOP.No.21 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam. Subsequently, the said RCOP was transferred and re-numbered as RCOP.No.2 of 1995, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nanilam.
4.By an order dated 22.03.1999, the learned District Munsif at Nanilam ordered eviction. He came to a conclusion that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant, between the respondents and the petitioner, and that the tenant has committed acts of willful default. The plea of the tenant that the monthly rent was not Rs.700/-, but only Rs.150/- increasable by Rs.10/- every year, stood rejected. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
5.Prior to coming to this conclusion, the Rent Controller had referred the lease deed for examination by a forensic expert. The expert also submitted a report confirming the signature found in the lease deed is that of the tenant.
6.Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Sub Judge at Thiruvarur, who is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeal was originally received as RCA.No.35 of 1999. The appeal was renumbered as RCA.No.20 of 2000.
7.On being served with the summons, the respondents / landlords filed an application under Section 11(1) of the erstwhile Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the '1960 Act').
8.They pointed out that the tenant was prosecuting the appeal without the payment of arrears, amounting to Rs.48,960/-. Hence, they sought for an order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears before proceeding with the appeal. This was in IA.No.55 of 1999. 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
9.Resisting this application, the tenant filed a counter pleading that the rent was only Rs.150/- and not Rs.700/- per month and that he is liable only to pay a sum of Rs.1,620/- towards arrears of rent from March, 1999 to August, 1999, for which purpose he had already filed a schedule of lodgement in RCA.No.34 of 1999. When the proceedings were so pending, the case stood transferred to the file of the Sub Judge at Thiruvarur.
10.Before the said authority, the case was re-numbered as RCA.No.20 of 2000 and the application filed under Section 11(1) was numbered as IA.No.8 of 2002. After an enquiry, the learned Sub Judge at Thiruvarur allowed the application, directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.48,960/- on or before 10.07.2006.
11.In the interregnum, the landlords have moved a revision before this Court in CRP.(NPD).No.550 of 2006, seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the application filed under Section 11(1) of the 1960 Act. This Court passed an order dated 21.04.2006, directing the learned Subordinate Judge , Thiruvarur, to dispose of the application on or before 30.06.2006.
5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
12.Consequent to the order passed in IA.No.8 of 2002 in RCA.No.20 of 2000 dated 10.07.2006, the tenant preferred CRP.(NPD).No.1391 of 2006. Since, the petitioner had not deposited the rents as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the appellate Court passed the consequent order dismissing the appeal. It granted two months time to the tenant to hand over possession. Aggrieved by that order, the tenant has preferred CRP.(NPD).No.1390 of 2006.
13.Summons were served on the landlords and they have entered appearance through Ms.Elizabeth.
14.When I took up the revision for disposal, Ms.Elizabeth filed a memo pointing out that the tenant is actually in arrears of Rs.2,62,030/-. According to the landlord, after May 2006, the tenant has stopped paying the rents. I should point out certain proceedings which have occurred in this Court, taking advantage of which, the tenant has failed to pay the rent.
15.Between the owner of the land, namely, Arulmigu Anantha Vigneshwaraswami Temple and the landlords herein, a suit for ejectment 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006 had been filed in OS.No.178 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Nagapattinam. Subsequently, the suits were transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court at Nanilam and numbered as OS.No.179 of 1996. The suit filed by the Temple came to be dismissed by the Trial Judge on 22.03.1999. The decree of dismissal was reversed by the Additional Subordinate Judge at Nagapattinam, in AS.No.198 of 1998, on 11.02.2000.
16.The landlords herein, as defendants 1 to 3, had preferred SA.No.1001 of 2000. In order to avoid being dispossessed from the property, the landlords had filed a stay application in CMP.No.9125 of 2000 and obtained an order of stay on 26.07.2002. In the said suit, the tenant herein had been impleaded as a eo nominee party.
17.The tenant had moved an application for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Court in CRP.(NPD).No.1391 of 2006 in CMP.No.1 of 2006. Simultaneously, he moved an application in CMP.No.2511 of 2006 in SA.No.1001 of 2000. The stay application in the second appeal had been filed on 14.12.2005 and the stay application in the revision was filed on 05.09.2006. 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
18.The stay petition in CMP.No.2511 of 2006, sought to stay all further proceedings in RCA.No.20 of 2000, pending on the file of the Sub Court at Thiruvarur, pending disposal of the second appeal. The stay was granted by this Court on 24.03.2006. As the petitioner / tenant had secured stay in the second appeal, he withdrew the stay application in CRP.(NPD).No.1391 of 2006, on 26.04.2007. This shows that the tenant had sought for a stay in the revision attacking the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and withdrew the same. In an un-connected proceedings, which relates to the tenancy of his landlords in respect of the vacant land belonging to the Temple, he obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings in the rent control matter.
19.This is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court. The tenant was well aware that the landlords had been seeking the payment of rents from 1999 onwards before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and that the tenant was resisting the same. Yet, instead of prosecuting MP.No.1 of 2006 in CRP.(NPD).No.1391 of 2006, he chose to withdraw the application, as he had secured an order of stay in the second appeal which has absolutely no connection with the rent control proceedings. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
20.It is not in dispute that the rent controller had come to a conclusion that the rent payable by the tenant is Rs.700/- per month. It is the duty of the tenant, who has assailed the fair and decreetal order in RCA proceedings to pay the rent so determined by the Court, without any default. Instead, he had taken the very same defence that he had taken before the trial authority.
21.The appellate authority had not directed the payment of rents by the tenant directly to the landlord, but had only called upon the tenant to deposit the rents into the Court. The tenant has an option to either pay the landlord, or to deposit the rent into the Court. The provision under Section 11(1) of the 1960 Act is clear that the tenant is not entitled to prosecute an appeal unless he pays or has paid the landlord, or deposits with the appellate authority the arrears of rent due, with respect to the building up to the date of the payment, and continues to deposit the rent, pending disposal of the appeal.
22.Section 11(4) of the 1960 Act directs the appellate authority to stop all further proceedings if the tenant does not show sufficient cause for 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006 non-payment and in default, order eviction. All that has been done in the case is that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has given effect to Section 11(4) of the 1960 Act.
23.Even, as on today, a calculation memo filed by the landlord shows that the tenant has not paid the rents for a period of 19 years and more. This shows that the tenant has not only exhibited supine indifference, but it is evident that the default is willful, wanton and deliberate. The landlord cannot run behind the tenant for payment of rents. It is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent month-on-month. In case it is not paid, the order of eviction automatically follows. As the tenant has not paid the rent from 1999 till the date of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and furthermore, from 24.03.2006 till date, i.e., on 23.10.2025; I find no reasons to extend any benefit to the tenant. The order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is perfectly justified.
24.The tenant has not shown any reason as to why this Court has to grant any indulgence to him. This Court is not inclined to grant him any time for eviction. The landlord is free to proceed further to evict the tenant. 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm ) C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006 In case, an execution petition is filed, the learned Executing Judge shall apply the judgment of the Supreme Court in Periyammal Vs. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, to decide and dispose the execution petition within a period of six months and ensure that delivery of possession is granted at the earliest. The Supreme Court in Periyammal's case dated 06.03.2025, has directed all the High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of execution petitions, which are pending in various Courts, within a period of six months, qua a circulate in R.O.C.No.27923-A/2025/F1. Accordingly, the Executing Judge shall comply with the same.
25.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with costs. The cost memo should be filed within a period of one week. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.10.2025
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm )
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006
To
1.The District Munsif,
District Munsif Court, Nanillam.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Sub Court,
Tiruvarur (Rent Contral Appellate Authority).
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1390 & 1391 of 2006 23.10.2025 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 01:50:43 pm )