R.Anbalagan (Deceased) vs Somaraj Dheekshidar

Court: Madras High Court
Case type: CRP
Decided on: 27-03-2026

<div> <b>2026:MHC:1269</b><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> <b>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS </b><br /> <b>ORDER RESERVED ON : 19 / 12 / 2025</b><br /> <b>ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 27 / 03 / 2026</b><br /> <b>CORAM: </b><br /> <b>THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>AND</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C.M.P. NO.9951 OF 2023</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> R.Anbalagan (Deceased)<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1.A.Jayamalathi,</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>W/o.Late Anbalagan,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No.40/21, Theradi Pillaiyar Koil Street,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chidambaram – 608 001</td><td>.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 2.A.Anushiya (Minor),<br /> D/o.Late Anbalagan,<br /> No.40/21, Theradi Pillaiyar Koil Street,<br /> Chidambaram – 608 001. ... Petitioners/<br /> legal representatives of the <br /> deceased, sole respondent - <br /> Anbalagan<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Note:</th><th>Minor second petitioner is</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>represented by her mother and natural</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>guardian -A.Jayamalathi / first</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>petitioner</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cause title accepted vide Order of this</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Court dated April 18, 2023 made in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C.M.P. No.8691 of 2023 in C.R.P. SR.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No.48680 of 2023.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b><i>Page No.1 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> <b>Vs.</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1.Somaraj Dheekshidar,</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S/o.Somasethu Dheekshidar,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No.72, South Car Street,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chidambaram.</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>2.Sarasa,</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>W/o.Somaraj Dheekshidar,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No.72, South Car Street,</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chidambaram.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> Petitioners<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>PRAYER :</th><th>Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal <br /> Order dated February 01, 2023 passed in I.A. No.17 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P. <br /> No.1 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, <br /> Chidambaram, and allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of <br /> 2022 in R.L.T.O.P. No.1 of 2021.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>For Petitioners</th><th></th><th>:</th><th></th><th>Mr.R.Krishna Prabhu</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>For Respondent</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>:</th><th></th><th>Mr.Suriya Badrinath</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>for Ms.V.Srimathi</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>O R D E R</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed in I.A. No.17 of</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> 2022 in R.L.T.O.P. No.1 of 2021 on the file of 'the Principal District <br /> Munsif Court, Chidambaram' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Court'], <br /> the Petitioners therein have filed this Civil Revision Petition.<br /> <b><i>Page No.2 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> <b>2. </b> The rental premises consists of two shops bearing Door Nos.3A <br /> and 3B, East Sannadhi, Chidambaram Town. One Sowdaranayagi was the <br /> owner of the property. She passed away on June 18, 2013 leaving behind <br /> nd<br /> her only daughter - Sarasa (2 Respondent herein) as her legal heir. One <br /> Rajamanickam, who is the father of the Revision Petitioner, is the original <br /> Tenant. After the demise of Rajamanickam, his son - Anbalagan was in <br /> st <br /> possession and enjoyment of the rented premises as Tenant. The 1<br /> nd<br /> Respondent herein is the husband of the 2 Respondent herein. The <br /> Tenant - Anbalagan committed default in payment of rent from March <br /> 2019 to September 2019. The Landlord issued a notice demanding <br /> Rs.29,400/- as arrears of rent and in turn, the Tenant issued an evasive <br /> reply. Furthermore, the building is very old and in a dilapidated condition. <br /> The Landlord decided to demolish the existing structure in the front side <br /> and put up a new construction. The Landlord have sufficient funds to do <br /> the construction. The Landlord require the shop premises for demolition <br /> and reconstruction and they gave an undertaking that they will do the <br /> construction at the earliest. Stating so, the Respondents filed R.L.T.O.P. <br /> No.1 of 2021 seeking eviction of the Tenant - Anbalagan.<br /> <b><i>Page No.3 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> <b>3. </b> The Tenant - Anbalagan filed a counter statement stating that his <br /> father took possession of the building as a Tenant nearly 40 years ago. At <br /> the time, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.100/- for Door No.3A and at <br /> Rs.75/- for Door No.3B. The rent was slowly increased from time to time <br /> and the present rent is Rs.750/- for Door No.3A and Rs.500/- for Door <br /> No.3B. Similarly, the advance amount was enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to <br /> Rs.15,000/-. The original Tenant / Petitioner's father - Rajamanickam was <br /> paying the monthly rent regularly without any default to the Landlord. <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>After the demise of the original Landlord, her daughter - Sarasa (2</th><th>nd</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Respondent herein) received the rent from the Petitioner’s father. After the <br /> demise of Petitioner's father, the Revision Petitioner - Anbalagan has been <br /> paying the rent regularly without any default to the Landlord - Sarasa. The <br /> claims of monthly rent for both shops at Rs.4,200/- and advance amount at <br /> Rs.7,000/- are incorrect. These shops are empty and there is no business <br /> worth the name. The Tenant did not commit any default in payment of rent <br /> and the building is not in an old and dilapidated condition. The Landlord <br /> does not have necessary funds to put up a new construction. Accordingly, <br /> he prayed to dismiss the petition.<br /> <b>4. </b> During the pendency of enquiry, the Tenant - Anbalagan filed an <br /> Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022 seeking appointment of an <br /> <b><i>Page No.4 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the rented premises and file report</th><th>qua</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> age and nature of the rented property with plan. The said Interlocutory <br /> Application was dismissed by the Rent Court; it concluded that the <br /> Advocate Commissioner alone could not assess the age of the building <br /> without the help of a qualified engineer.<br /> <b>5. </b> After the dismissal order, the Tenant - Anbalagan passed away <br /> leaving behind his wife and minor daughter as his legal heirs / legal <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>representatives.</th><th>Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, they have filed</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> this Civil Revision Petition. <br /> <b>6. </b> Mr.R.Krishna Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision <br /> Petitioners / legal representatives of deceased Tenant - Anbalagan, would <br /> submit that the Tenant was paying the rent without any default. The <br /> Landlord's claims that the building is very old and in a dilapidated <br /> condition is false and the said plea was made only with a view to evict the <br /> Tenant from the premises. However, to disprove the plea of the Landlord <br /> that the building is very old and in a dilapidated condition, appointment of <br /> an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and other <br /> attending circumstances is necessary. Hence, the Tenant filed an <br /> Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022, seeking appointment of an <br /> <b><i>Page No.5 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> Advocate Commissioner. The Trial Court, without considering the facts <br /> and circumstances of the case, erred in dismissing the Interlocutory <br /> Application reasoning out that only a qualified engineer could ascertain the <br /> age of the building. Further, he would submit that an appointment of <br /> Advocate Commissioner is necessary to ascertain the age of the building <br /> and if the Court is of the opinion that a qualified engineer is also necessary, <br /> then the Court may be pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner and a <br /> qualified engineer. Accordingly, he would pray to allow this Civil Revision <br /> Petition, set aside the Order passed by the Rent Court and allow the <br /> Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Per contra</th><th>, Mr.Suriya Badrinath learned Counsel appearing on</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> behalf of Ms.V.Srimathi, learned Counsel on record for the Respondents 1 <br /> & 2 / Manager & Landlord respectively, would submit that the Original <br /> Petition was filed on the premise that the Tenant committed default in <br /> payment of rents. Further, the Tenant does not satisfy the statutory <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>requirement as per the New Act. The Tenant</th><th>inter alia</th><th>pleaded that the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> building was neither very old nor in a dilapidated condition. The Landlord <br /> decided to demolish and reconstruct the same. The Tenant cannot question <br /> the act of the Landlord. The Tenant only with a view to drag on the <br /> proceedings, filed the Interlocutory Application. Furthermore, he is <br /> <b><i>Page No.6 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> enjoying the possession of the property without paying the rent properly <br /> and thereby getting unjust enrichment. Accordingly, he would pray to <br /> dismiss this Civil Revision Petition and sustain the Order passed by the <br /> Rent Court.<br /> <b>8. </b> This Court has considered both sides' submission and perused the <br /> file. <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>R.L.T.O.P.</th><th></th><th>No.1 of 2021 was filed mainly on the ground of non-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> payment of rent from March 2019 to September 2019. An additional <br /> ground raised was that the building is in an old and dilapidated condition <br /> and the Landlord desired to demolish and reconstruct a portion thereof. <br /> The Interlocutory Application was filed seeking to appoint an Advocate-<br /> Commissioner in order to ascertain the condition, age and nature of the <br /> rented property and the Trial Court dismissed the same stating that the <br /> Tenant did not seek appointment of a qualified engineer without whom <br /> ascertaining the age of the building would not be possible.<br /> <b>10. </b> As per Section 21 (2) (e) read with Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu <br /> Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, <br /> 2017, age and condition of the rented / demised property is irrelevant. If <br /> the Landlord desires to improve, renovate, reconstruct or remodel their <br /> <b><i>Page No.7 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> property and if ready and willing to commence the work, the Rent Court <br /> on an application can order so. The question of age, condition and nature <br /> of the rented / demised premises does not arise at all. Hence, the defence <br /> that the rented property is neither very old nor in a dilapidated condition is <br /> of no significance. In such a scenario, there is no need to appoint <br /> Advocate-Commissioner or a qualified engineer at all. The Rent Court <br /> rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022 and <br /> this Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the dismissal, though the <br /> reason assigned by the Rent Court is not justifiable. Therefore, the Civil <br /> Revision Petition must fail.<br /> <b>11. </b> Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. <br /> Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order <br /> as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is <br /> closed.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>27 / 03 /2026</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Index</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>: Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Speaking Order</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>: Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>: Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>pam</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b><i>Page No.8 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> To<br /> The Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court), <br /> Chidambaram. <br /> <b><i>Page No.9 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )<br /><br /> <b><i>C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023</i></b><br /> <b>R. SAKTHIVEL, J.</b><br /> pam<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>C.R.P.NO.1507 OF 2023</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>27 / 03 / 2026</b><br /> <b><i>Page No.10 of 10</i></b><br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2026 06:43:41 pm )</div>