T. GURUSAMYRAJA vs T.S.GANESARAJA

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 12/10/2026
Date of Pronounced 27/10/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)Nos.9163 of 2023 and
4283 of 2026
B.Gurusamyraja : Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
T.S.Ganesaraja : Respondent/Respondent/
Petitioner
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as against the fair
and decreetal order, dated 14/07/2023 in RCA No.9 of 2021 in RLTOP
No.43 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-
cum-Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the order, dated
26/11/2021 in RLTOP No.43 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent
Controller-cum-District Munsif, Rajapalayam.

1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and
decreetal order, dated 14/07/2023 passed in RCA No.9 of 2021 in RLTOP
No.43 of 2019 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-
Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the order, dated
26/11/2021 passed in RLTOP No.43 of 2019 by the learned Rent
Controller-cum-District Munsif, Rajapalayam.

2.The petitioner is the Tenant and the respondent is the Landlord.
The petitioner states that an oral tenancy agreement was entered into
between the parties on 01/07/2008, whereby the second schedule
premises was let out to the petitioner/Tenant. An advance of
Rs.3,00,000/- was received and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,500/-.
The tenancy was agreed to be for a period of five years. It is further
stated that the Landlord had borrowed money from the Tenant on
16/02/2005 and therefore, instead of paying the rent separately, the rent
was adjusted towards the interest payable on the amount borrowed.
According to the Landlord, though the prevailing market rent for the
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
premises was about Rs.30,000/- per month, the premises was let out at a
lesser rent considering the financial transaction between the parties. The
tenancy period expired on 30/06/2013. Thereafter, the Landlord required
the premises for his own use and occupation, as he was carrying on
business in the name of G.V. Granites and was also engaged in real estate
business. Hence, he cancelled the oral tenancy agreement and requested
the Tenant to vacate and hand over possession of the premises. Though
the Tenant initially agreed to vacate, he failed to do so on one pretext or
the other. The Landlord also requested the Tenant to receive the mortgage
amount and acknowledge the same. Since the Tenant refused to receive
the amount, the Landlord filed Tender O.P No.1 of 2019 before the Sub
Court, Srivilliputhur and deposited the mortgage amount together with
interest. Even thereafter, the Tenant failed to vacate the premises.

3.It is further stated that the Tenant did not permit the Landlord to
enter the premises and that when the same was questioned, an altercation
took place and a criminal case was also registered. Thereafter, three
proceedings came to be initiated, namely, RLTOP No.42 of 2019 for
deposit of rent, RLTOP No.43 of 2019 seeking eviction on the ground of
expiry of the tenancy period and RLTOP No.44 of 2019 seeking fixation
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
of fair rent. RLTOP Nos.42 and 43 of 2019 were allowed, whereas
RLTOP No.44 of 2019 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed in
RLTOP No.43 of 2019, the Tenant preferred RCA No.9 of 2021 before
the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Tenant would
submit that the Landlord had issued a notice, dated 28/05/2019 alleging
default in payment of rent and calling upon the Tenant to vacate and hand
over possession. After receipt of the notice, the Tenant paid the rent for
three months, but the Landlord refused to receive the same and returned
it to the Tenant.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Tenant would
further submit that the Landlord had borrowed money from the Tenant
agreeing to pay interest and had also executed a registered mortgage deed
in respect of his property on 16/02/2005. Since the Landlord failed to
repay the amount borrowed, the Tenant instituted O.S Nos.98 of 2020
and 324 of 2020 and both the suits have subsequently been decreed. It is
further submitted that the Landlord had filed Tender O.P No.1 of 2019
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
seeking permission to deposit the rent, but subsequently did not pursue
the same and withdrew the amount. Therefore, the Landlord had not
approached the Court with clean hands. The learned counsel would
further submit that the Landlord refused to receive the rent and therefore,
the Tenant sent a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards rent from January 2019 to
April 2019 by way of two demand drafts bearing Nos.186277 and
186279 drawn on Axis Bank, Rajapalayam. The Tenant had also paid the
electricity charges. However, the Landlord, without the knowledge of the
Tenant, paid the electricity charges and therefore, the Tenant sent a sum
of Rs.2,007/- towards electricity charges by way of demand draft bearing
No.185276 dated 22/05/2019 towards reimbursement. The said demand
draft was also returned by the Landlord. It is further submitted that the
Tenant repeatedly requested the Landlord to furnish his bank account
particulars so that the rent could be deposited directly into the account.
However, the Landlord refused to furnish the particulars and returned the
amounts sent by the Tenant. According to the learned counsel, the Tenant
was always ready and willing to pay the rent and there was no wilful
default on his part.
6.With regard to the ground of own use and occupation, the
learned counsel would submit that the Landlord himself admitted the
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
existence of the mortgage transaction in favour of the Tenant and
therefore, the requirement pleaded by him was not bona fide. In support
of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) . In Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal , reported in
AIR 1988 SC 1060 , wherein it has been held in para 13 and 14 as
follows:-
“ 13.We are of the view that by merely proving
that the premises in question is a non-residential
building and that the landlord or any member of his
family is not occupying for the purpose of a business
which he or any member of his family is carrying on
any residential building in the city, town or village
concerned which is his own, the landlord cannot in
the context in which section 10(3)(a)(iii) appears get a
tenant evicted. He must show in view of clause (e)
of section 10(3) that his claim is bona fide. The word
'claim' means "a demand for something as due" or "to
seek or ask or for on the ground of right" etc. In the
context of Rent Control Law which is enacted for the
purpose of giving protection to tenants against
unreasonable evictions and for the purpose of making
equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons
who are in need of them in order to prove that his
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
claim is bona fide a landlord should establish that he
deserves to be put in possession of the premises which
is in the occupation of a tenant. Any decision on the
question whether a landlord deserves to be put in
possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant
should naturally depend upon the bona fides of the
landlord's requirement or need. The word 'claim' in
clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act should, therefore,
he construed as 'the requirement' of the landlord or
his deservedness. 'Deserve' means 'to have a rightful
claim' or 'a just claim'. Since clause (e) of section
10(3) of the Act is also applicable to a petition filed
under sub-clause (iii) of section 10(3)(a) of the Act it
becomes necessary to examine whether the
requirement of the landlord is bona fide. Otherwise a
landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy his
whim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned
in section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Take a case where a
landlord for some oblique reason wishes to get rid of
his tenant from a non-residential building of the
category mentioned in section 10(3)(a)(iii) and to
achieve his aim fakes to start money-lending business
(for which indeed no specified separate portion in a
building may be needed) in a building not belonging
to him and to create evidence even actually lends
money to some of his friends or relatives and a week
thereafter applies for eviction of the tenant on the
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
ground that he is carrying on business and has no
non- residential building of his own in his occupation
in the city, town or village concerned. Apparently, the
conditions prescribed in the aforesaid sub-clause (iii)
are fulfilled. If the requirement of "claim" being "bona
fide" as contained in section 10(3)(e) is construed to
mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for
the non-residential building is not to be considered
and the circumstances that the landlord on the date of
making the application is factually carrying on
business and has no non-residential building of his
own in his occupation in the city, town or village
concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his
claim bona fide, the tenancy of no non-residential
building will be secure. It will be preposterous to
attribute such an intention to the legislature. Such a
contingency should be avoided as it would be against
the very object of the Act itself. The need of the
landlord should be genuine. That is the object of
enacting clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act. When
once we reach the above conclusion it is not enough
that the landlord should merely desire to use or
occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he
should bona fide need them for his own use and
occupation or for occupation by any of the members
of his family as held by this Court in Phiroze Bamanji
Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors. , [1974]
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
3 S.C.R. 267 and Mattulal v. Radhe Lal , [1975] 1
S.C.R. 127. The learned Judge who decided the case
out of which this appeal arises was, therefore, in error
in holding that the landlord need not prove that his
requirement was bona fide but that his claim was
bona fide as provided in clause (e) of section 10(3) of
the Act. The learned Judge has made a distinction
between `requirement' and `claim' in the present case
without there being a difference.
14.In the circumstances we are of the view that
M/s. Mahalakshmi's case ( supra), M. Abdul Rahman 's
case ( supra) and A. Khan Mohammed 's case (supra)
have been wrongly decided. They are liable to be
overruled. We accordingly overrule them. We hold that
a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-
residential premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the
Act in order to succeed in his petition should establish
that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to
proving the other ingredients referred to therein. The
judgment of the High Court which has proceeded on a
wrong basis has, therefore, to be set aside. Since the
High Court while allowing the revision petition has
approached the case from a wrong angle, it is
necessary to direct the High Court to decide it afresh
in the light of what we have stated above. We,
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and remand it to the High Court again to decide it
afresh. If the High Court finds that the case should be
remanded to the Trial Court to enable any of the
parties to lead evidence on the question of the bona
fide requirement of the landlord it may remit the case
to the Trial Court.”
(ii)In S.Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V.R. Pattabhiraman , reported in
AIR 1985 SC 582 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 25
as follows:-
“25.Thus, a consensus of the meaning of the
words 'wilful default' appears to indicate that default
in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate,
calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal
consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a
case where a tenant commits default after default
despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay
the rent without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be
said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such
a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful
default as contemplated either by the Act or by other
Acts referred to above.”
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
7.By relying upon the above judgments, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/Tenant prays for allowing the Civil Revision
Petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Courts
below.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Landlord would submit that the Tenant’s intention is merely
to grab the petition premises. Though it is admitted that the rent payable
by the Tenant was adjusted towards interest, the Tenant has failed to
establish that he had been regularly paying the rent.
9 . The learned counsel would further submit that the Landlord
issued a notice to the Tenant alleging non-payment of rent for the period
from January 2019 to April 2019. After receipt of the notice, the Tenant
allegedly tendered only a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards four months’ rent.
As the amount tendered was inadequate, having regard to the actual rent
payable in respect of the petition premises, the Landlord refused to
receive the same. It is further contended that the Tenant had failed to pay
the rent from the year 2019 onwards and that his conduct clearly
establishes wilful default. According to the learned counsel, the Tenant
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
opened a bank account only subsequently and attempted to create
evidence to make it appear as though he had been regularly paying the
rent.
10 . The learned counsel would also submit that the Landlord has no
other premises to carry on his business and that he bona fide requires the
petition premises for his own use and occupation. It is contended that the
Tenant, with the intention of protracting the proceedings and preventing
the Landlord from enjoying his property, has initiated successive
proceedings and refused to vacate and hand over possession of the
petition premises. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the
Courts below, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, have rightly ordered eviction and rejected the
Tenant’s contentions. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present
Civil Revision Petition.
11 . In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78,
wherein the scope of revisional jurisdiction was explained as follows:-
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
“ 43.The observation in Ramdoss (2000) 2 SCC
1356 that the High Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority
and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess
the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section
25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini and
Sankaranarayanan. Its observation that the High
Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact must
be understood in the context where such finding is
perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the
evidence or such finding has been arrived at by
ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such
finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed to
stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice.
Ramdoss does not hold that the High Court may
interfere with the findings of fact because on re-
appreciation of the evidence its view is different from
that of the first Appellate Court or Authority. The
decision of this Court in V.M. Mohan (2006) 9 SCC
606 is again in line with the judgment of this Court in
Rukmini, (1993) 1 SCC 499.”
12 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused
the materials available on record.
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
13.The relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the parties is
not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the tenancy commenced
pursuant to an oral agreement dated 01/07/2008 and that the monthly rent
was initially fixed at Rs.3,500/-.
14.According to the Landlord, the Tenant had not been paying the
rent regularly and that the rent payable was adjusted towards the interest
due on the amount borrowed by the Landlord in the year 2005. Though
the Tenant disputed the said contention and claimed that he had regularly
paid the rent, he failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to
substantiate his claim of regular payment.
15.The principal evidence relied upon by the Tenant in support of
his claim is the bank transaction. However, the Tenant has not produced
convincing evidence to establish that, prior to the relevant period, the
rent had been regularly paid either through banking channels or directly
to the Landlord. Nor has the Tenant examined any independent witness to
corroborate his claim of regular payment of rent.
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
16.It is the specific case of the Landlord that the Tenant failed to
pay the rent for the period from January 2019 to April 2019 and that the
Tenant attempted to tender the rent by way of demand drafts only after
receipt of the notice. The subsequent tender of rent, after issuance of the
notice, lends support to the Landlord’s contention that the rent had not
been regularly paid. Though the Tenant contended that the Landlord had
deliberately refused to receive the rent, no satisfactory material, apart
from the subsequent demand drafts, has been produced to establish that
the Tenant had regularly tendered the rent prior to the issuance of the
notice. In these circumstances, the Courts below were justified in
concluding that the Tenant had committed wilful default in payment of
rent.
17.As regards the requirement of the petition premises for own use
and occupation, the Landlord has specifically pleaded that he requires the
premises for carrying on his business. The materials placed on record
also support his case that he is carrying on business and requires the
petition premises for his own use and occupation.
15/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
18.The contention of the Tenant that the mortgage transaction
between the parties renders the Landlord’s requirement not bona fide
cannot be accepted. The mortgage transaction and the tenancy constitute
distinct transactions, and the rights of the Tenant arising out of the
mortgage transaction may be worked out in appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law.
19.The fact that the Tenant has obtained decrees in the mortgage
suits would not, by itself, defeat the Landlord’s claim for eviction on the
ground of own use and occupation. The Tenant is at liberty to enforce the
decrees obtained by him in the manner known to law. The existence of
such decrees does not, in itself, disentitle the Landlord from seeking
possession of the petition premises, provided the statutory requirements
for eviction are otherwise satisfied.
20 . In the present case, the Courts below have found that the Tenant
committed default in payment of rent for the period from January 2019 to
April 2019 and that the rent was tendered only after issuance of the
notice. They have also accepted the Landlord’s claim that the petition
premises are required for his own use and occupation. On a consideration
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
of the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground
to dislodge the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
21.The Courts below have considered the oral and documentary
evidence available on record and rendered concurrent findings in favour
of the Landlord. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction
under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, cannot interfere with such findings merely because another view of
the evidence may be possible. In the absence of any perversity, illegality
or material irregularity warranting interference, the concurrent findings
of the Courts below do not call for interference in the present Civil
Revision Petition.
22.The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh , reported in
(2014) 9 SCC 78, are applicable to the present case. In view of the
limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the absence of any ground
warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below,
this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
23.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
27/10/2026
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur.
2.The District Munsif, Rajapalayam.
3.The Section Officer.
VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )

CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
R.POORNIMA.,J
er
Order made in
CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023
27/10/2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 01:19:53 pm )