Madras High Court
J.Raghupathy Devi vs M/S.Zimson Times Private Limited
CRP. No.3203 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:12.08.2025 Pronounced on:12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP. No.3203 of 2023
and CMP. No.19801 of 2023
1.J.Raghupathy Devi
2.Radha
3.J.Venkatesh
Petitioners
Vs
1.M/s.Zimson Times Private Limited,
Represented by its one of its Director,
E.A.Ismail @ Mohammed Ismail,
Door No.320, Oppanakkara Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001.
2.M.E.Balrajan
3.M/s.Mobile Maiyam,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.1 & 2,
Rajaji Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore- 641 012.
4.M/s.The Mobile Home,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.3,
Rajaji Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore- 641 012.
5.M/s.The Mobile Boyz,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.4,
Rajaji Road-Cross cut Road Junction,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore- 641 012.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm )
CRP. No.3203 of 2023
6.M/s.Titan Eye Plus,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.7,
Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore- 641 012.
7.M/s.Hotel Gowri Nivas,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.9,
Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore- 641 012.
8.M/s.SreeBafna Cards,
Door No.314 to 329, Shop No.10,
Cross cut Road, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore – 641 012.
9.M/s.Selfie Mobile,
Door No.314 to 329,
Shop No.12, Cross Cut Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012.
Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated
02.08.2023 made in I.A. No.6 of 2023 in RLTOP No.29 of 2021 on the
file of Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimabatore.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.R.Ragunathan,
for Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Mukunth,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.H.Shabeer Ali for
M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R1
Mr.A.Muthukumar for R2
Mrs.T.Kalpanadevi for R7.
Given Up- R6, R8 and R9
No Appearance for R3 to R5
*********
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm )
CRP. No.3203 of 2023
ORDER
The revision petition is at the instance of the landlords in RLTOP. No.29 of 2021 which has been filed for a direction to the respondents 2 to 9 surrendering vacant possession of the tenanted premises with a further direction to pay arrears of Rs.23,82,000/-, together with interest and compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-.
2. Heard Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, learned counsel for Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Mukunth, leaned Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Shabeer Ali, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mrs.R.Kalpanadevi, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 are given up and there is no appearance on the side of the respondents 3 to 5.
3. Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state the first petitioner’s husband became entitled the subject property under a registered partition deed of the year 1964 and thereafter, after his demise on 19.05.2001, his wife, the first petitioner, the daughter, second petitioner and son, third petitioner became entitled to the subject 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 property. In 2006, the petitioners filed RCOP. No.126 of 2001 against one Gulabchand, for eviction on the ground of wilful default of rent as well as requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition. An eviction order was passed on 09.10.2017 and the same was challenged in RCA. No.3 of 2020.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 1 and 2, on 20.05.2019, fabricated and forged a lease agreement and on the strength of the same, the second respondent attempted to assign the property to the first respondent who was a total stranger. An amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was deposited into the first petitioner’s bank account by the first respondent and immediately on coming to know of the same, the first petitioner has caused a lawyers’ notice on 30.01.2020 and a legal notice to the first respondent on 01.02.2020, stating that he can take back the amount deposited, with ulterior motives. The first petitioner has also lodged a police complaint on 03.02.2020 and the petitioners were also constrained to move a suit in O.S. No.188 of 2020 in February 2020, to restrain the second respondent from subletting or alienating the suit property which belongs to the petitioners absolutely. This suit was pertaining to Door No.328 and similar suits pertaining to Door Nos. 327 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 and 329 were also filed in O.S. No.199 of 2020. An order of status quo was granted in O.S. No.188 of 2020 in I.A. No.02 of 2020 and on 06.02.2020, the Bank has returned the said sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the account of the first respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction on 27.02.2020 to restrain the defendants from in any manner forcibly vacating the second respondent from the suit property.
5. On the complaint of the petitioners’, a criminal case was also registered against the respondents 1 and 2 amongst others. A quash petition filed by the first respondent came to be dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.11589 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the above RLTOP against the respondent 2 to 9 in March 2021. In December 2021, the police authorities have filed a final report stating that further action was dropped. The petitioners have moved this Court in CRP. No.417 of 2023 for expeditious disposal of RLTOP No.29 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 16.03.2023, directed the Rent Court to dispose of the RLTOP within a period of six weeks.
6. In the meantime, the second respondent, on 13.06.2023 filed an 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of the tenanted premises. The said Application was dismissed, as against which the second respondent moved this Court in CRP No.2371 of 2023 and the same was also dismissed on 12.07.2023. After evidence was recorded, the first respondent filed yet another Application in I.A. No.6 of 2023 for impleading certain parties. The said Interlocutory Application came to be allowed on 02.08.2023, as against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, would therefore contend that the second respondent has admittedly subleased the properties belonging to the petitioners, without their written consent and knowledge and they have also indulged in acts of cheating and forgery, in respect of which Crime No.13 of 2020 has already been initiated and the same is pending before the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. The learned counsel would further state that the first respondent who is sought to be impleaded is a total stranger of the premises and he is no way connected to the petitioners' premises or the disputes between the parties viz., the petitioners and respondents 2 to 9. 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023
8. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, would also place reliance on the decision of this Court M.Paul Raj Vs. N.Paramasivan and Another, reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 985, where this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960) provides for a procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under the said Act. In the facts of the said case as well, this Court was dealing with an application seeking impleadment of a third party, under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC. This Court finally held that the Application itself was not maintainable and upheld the order of the Courts below, refusing to permit the impleading of the proposed parties.
9. In Nalini Zaman Vs. Zulfikar Ali, in CRP. No.21 of 2023 dated 19.01.2023, this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Regulation Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 42 of 2017, as amended by Act 39 of 2018 is armed with specific procedure for effective disposal of cases and the Rent Courts are expected to follow the same in compliance with the rules of natural justice. Referring to Section 36(1) of the Act 42 of 2017, this Court held that CPC is inapplicable and the 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 parties, in the event of filing any Interlocutory Application under Code of Civil Procedure, the same cannot be entertained by the Rent Court. Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, learned counsel would therefore pray for the order of the impleadment of the first respondent being set aside, by allowing this revision.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.S.Mukunth would state the first respondent, is firstly not a stranger as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He would refer to the averments set out in the affidavit in support of the impleading Application and would state that admittedly, a huge sum of Rs.25,00,000/- has been credited to the bank account of the first petitioner and if really the first respondent was a stranger, then there was no occasion for him to know personal details of the first petitioner, especially the bank account number to enable him to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. He would further state that even according to the petitioners, the suit in O.S. No.188 and 199 of 2020 have been filed before the learned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and the first respondent has also filed a suit in O.S. No.298 of 2020. The learned Senior Counsel therefore states that the petitioners are fully aware of the 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 factum of subletting by the first respondent and the learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the rental agreement executed by the first petitioner with M/s.Zimson Times Private Limited on 20.05.2019, in and whereby, the first petitioner has inducted the first respondent into 2000 sq.ft area, in the ground floor of the tenanted premises and contend that when the first petitioner has voluntarily inducted the first respondent into the tenanted premises and the first respondent is in possession of the same, he is certainly a proper and necessary party and Rent Court has rightly allowed the Application for impleading the first respondent.
11. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that though provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, the Rent Courts are entitled to formulate their own procedure and therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Rent Court, allowing the Application for impleading the first respondent. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023
13. The petitioners after having become entitled to the petition premises, have sought for evicting the respondents 2 to 9. The specific case of the petitioners before the Rent Court is that the second respondent is the tenant and he has sublet the premises to the respondents 3 to 9. It is also their specific case that the lease agreement under which the first respondent claims to be a tenant is a forged and fabricated document. According to the first petitioner, she has not entered into any such lease agreement with the first respondent. It is however, the case of the first respondent that the first respondent was put in possession of the property and a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as advance was directly paid to the first petitioner’s bank account. It is the case of the petitioners before the Rent Court that the second respondent has unauthorisedly sublet the premises to the respondents 3 to 9, that too, after committing acts of forgery, by forging the signatures of the first petitioner, the second respondent has also entered into an agreement with the first respondent as if, it is by the first petitioner.
14. Even according to the second respondent, he is the chief tenant and he has sublet various portions of the premises to sub-lessees. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said second respondent has 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 colluded with the first respondent, only in order to defeat the rights of the revision petitioners/landlords. No doubt, there are criminal proceedings also initiated and other civil suits pending between the parties. Insofar as the present RLTOP No.29 of 2021 is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents therein have been put in possession by the first respondent in the RLTOP, that is the second respondent herein and that they are only sub-lessees who are bound to vacate and hand over vacant possession.
15. Pending the said proceedings, the first respondent herein has sought impleadment based on the lease agreement entered into on 20.05.2019. The Rent Court has also proceeded to allow the impleading Application only on the basis of the said lease agreement dated 20.05.2019 which is claimed to have been executed by the first petitioner herself. However, on a perusal of the rental agreement which is relied on by the first respondent, and as rightly pointed out by Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, the stamp papers on which, the first page of the rental agreement is typed has been purchased in the name of the first petitioner on 29.05.2019 from a stamp vendor at Coimbatore. However, the rental agreement itself is dated 20.05.2019, that is 9 days prior to even issuance of the stamp 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 paper. The first petitioner has also disputed her signatures in the said rental agreement as well and this additional factor of the agreement itself being executed on a date prior to even issuance of stamp paper creates more suspicion regarding genuineness of the said rental agreement.
16. Be that as it may, in a petition for recovery of possession under the Tamil Nadu Regulation Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 42 of 2017, as amended by Act 39 of 2018, a third party who claims certain rights cannot seek automatic impleadment, that too, applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in Nalini Zaman’s case (referred herein supra) has already held that in terms of Section 36(1) of the Act, CPC itself is not applicable. Even under the earlier legislation viz., the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 18 of 1960 as well, this Court has repeatedly held the proceedings are summary in nature and provisions of CPC, more specifically, Order I, Rule 10 CPC, cannot be invoked seeking impleadment of third parties.
17. The petitioners do not intend to seek relief against the first respondent and being the dominus litis in the legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be compelled to litigate the 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 RLTOP against a third party, against their will. Moreover, the first respondent has sought impleadment invoking provisions of Order I, Rule 10 CPC which is not even applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Court. No doubt, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Mukunth, the Rent Court is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Rent Court ordering allowing the impeladment as prayed for by the first respondent. I am unable to countenance the said submission for the simple reason that the principles of natural justice being followed by the Rent Court should be read in the context of application of the said rules of natural justice between the parties to the litigation. It cannot be extended to even cover a third party who seeks impleadment in the proceedings. If at all, the first respondent has any grievance as against the revisions petitioners, it is always open to him to independently canvass the same. However, by seeking impleadment in the pending RLTOP, that too, against the wishes of the petitioners, such impleadment is clearly impermissible under the statute. The Rent Court has been carried away by the factum of the Rental Agreement entered into between the first petitioner and the first respondent, without noticing that the genuineness of the said agreement has been disputed by the petitioners 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 and all these complex issues of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings initiated by the landlords against persons claiming to be their tenants, for recovery of possession under the provisions of the statute viz., Tamil Nadu Regulation Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 42 of 2017.
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Rent Court and consequently, I.A. No.6 of 2023 is set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also allowed.
12.09.2025 rkp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To:
The Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif, Coimabatore.14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm ) CRP. No.3203 of 2023 P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp Pre-delivery order in CRP. No.3203 of 2023 and CMP. No.19801 of 2023 12.09.2025 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:55:51 pm )