Rhotash Singh vs RM.Palaniappan (Died) 1. Ramu

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 29.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 14.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5035 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011231472026}
Rhotash Singh
Prop. Sharp Age Industries,
No.1/3,
Mount Poonamallee Road,
Nandampakkam,
Chennai 600 089.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. RM.Palaniappan (Died)
1. Ramu
S/o. RM.Palaniappan,
No.55, Vallal Adhiyaman Street,
Bagirathi Nagar,
Puzhithivakkam,
Chennai 600 091.
Rep. by his power agent
K.Asokan,
S/o. Karuppaiah,
No.6/9. Kannan Street,
MKB Nagar,
New Perungalathur,
Chengalpattu District.
2. Panchu Palaniappan
S/o.RM.Palaniappan,
No.55, Vallal Adhiyaman Street,
Bagirathi Nagar,
Puzhithivakkam,
Chennai 600 091.
Rep. by his power agent
K.Asokan,
S/o. Karuppaiah,
No.6/9. Kannan Street,
MKB Nagar,
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
New Perungalathur,
Chengalpattu District.
3. Umayal
D/o. RM.Palaniappan,
No.869, A/6,E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.
Currently residing at 10829,
Southbury LN, Frisco,
Texas 750 33.
Rep. by her power agent
K.Asokan,
S/o. Karuppaiah,
No.6/9. Kannan Street,
MKB Nagar,
New Perungalathur,
Chengalpattu District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the
Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority,
Alandur in RCA No.5 of 2021 dated 01.04.2026 by the Learned Subordinate
Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur confirming the Judgment and Decree in
RCOP No.86 of 2013 dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal
District Judge/Rent Controller, Alandur as devoid of any merits.
For Petitioner(s): M.Venkatakrishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel
for Mrs.Uma Gopalakrishnan
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying to set aside the
Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority,
Alandur, in RCA No.5 of 2021 dated 01.04.2026 by the Learned Subordinate
Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur confirming the Judgment and Decree in
RCOP No.86 of 2013 dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal
District Judge/Rent Controller, Alandur as devoid of any merits.
2.The revision petitioner is admittedly a tenant who was under the
occupation of the tenanted premises belonging to the respondent/landlord. The
respondent filed RCOP No.86 of 2013 invoking Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, seeking to fix the fair rent
at Rs.2,93,000/- per month. The revision petitioner resisted the said fair rent
petition contending that the landlord had already instituted a suit for delivery of
possession along with the relief for damages for use and occupation in
O.S.No.217 of 2002 before the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu and in the
said suit, the tenant suffered a decree. It is also mentioned in the counter
statement that an appeal preferred in A.S No.42 of 2007 before the Principal
District Court, Chengalpattu was also dismissed, thereby confirming the decree
for recovery of possession. Dissatisfied with the concurrent findings, the
revision petitioner moved this Court in second appeal and the second appeal
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
also came to be dismissed. The judgment in the second appeal was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.28136 of 2009 and admittedly,
the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as it was not diligently followed up by
the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter attempted a review by filing a curative
petition, which was also unsuccessful. In the meantime, the respondent/plaintiff
filed E.P No.114 of 2009 to execute the decree for possession and also for
conducting an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC, for mesne profits
claimed by the petitioner at Rs.2,93,000/- per month, payable from September
1997 onwards. Admittedly, the mesne profit application was not prosecuted
diligently by the respondent/landlord and consequently, it came to be dismissed.
However, by filing E.P No.114 of 2009, the respondent has already evicted the
revision petitioner from the tenanted premises, which is admitted. In the year
2013, the respondent, invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act and filed RCOP No.86 of 2013 for fixing the fair
rent. Notwithstanding the objections taken by the petitioner that the filing of the
fair rent petition after the decree for delivery of possession was not
maintainable, the Rent Controller proceeded to fix the fair rent at Rs.2,93,000/-
per month. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent
Controller and dismissed RCA No.5 of 2021. As against these concurrent
findings, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
3.I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan, counsel for the petitioner /tenant and Mr.S.Mukunth,
learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Uma Gopalakrishnan counsel for the
respondents.
4.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would mainly contend that
once the tenant has suffered a decree for eviction, then he ceases to be a tenant
falling within the definition of “tenant” under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and therefore, the very filing of
the petition for fixation of fair rent, after the decree came to be passed on
28.08.2006 in O.S No.217 of 2002 was not maintainable in the eye of law. In
support of his submissions, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel also
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Heera Traders v.
Kamala Jain, reported in (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 233 as well as the
decision of this Court in K.V.Nayak v. Mrs.Chandra Devasagayam, reported in
1988(2) LW 99 .
5.Per contra, Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlord, would strenuously contend that, on the date of filing of the
suit for recovery of possession, the Rent Control Act had not been extended to
Poonamallee, where the petition premises is admittedly situated. Therefore,
there was no bar for the landlord to seek fixation of fair rent though a suit for
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
recovery of possession had already been filed. He would further contend that
there is a distinction between the definition of “tenant” under the Rent Control
Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960), as well as the new legislation, namely, the Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,
2017 (Act 42 of 2017), as amended by Act 39 of 2018. In this regard, he took
me through the definitions of “tenant” under the aforesaid enactments and also
the definition of “tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
Act, 1961. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel contends that the definition
of “tenant” as required under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,
1961, is in pari-materia , only with the definition of “tenant” under the Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,
2017 (Act 42 of 2017), but not with the erstwhile Rent Control Act, namely,
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960. It is, therefore, his
submission that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Heera Traders, had
decided the issue arising under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
Act, 1961 alone, the said decision cannot be treated as a binding precedent for
this Court to rely upon and to exempt the tenant from a statutory obligation and
liability to pay the fair rent fixed. He would, therefore, pray for dismissal of the
revision petition and seek for confirmation of the order fixing the fair rent by
the Court below.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
6.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I
have also gone through the decisions that have been relied upon by
Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant.
7.For better appreciation, the definition of “tenant” under the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) under Section
2(8) is to be appreciated. The same is usefully extracted hereunder:
2(8) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose
account rent is payable for a building and includes the
surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal
representative of a deceased tenant who -
(i) in the case of a residential building, had been living
with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant’s
family up to the death of the tenant, and
(ii) in the case of a non-residential building, had been in
continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of
carrying on the business of the tenant up to the death of the
tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter; and
a person continuing in possession after the termination of the
tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in
occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the
collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart stand or
slaughterhouse of of rents for shops has been formed out or
leased by a Municipal Council or a Panchayat Union Council
or the Municipal Corporation of Madras or the Municipal
Corporation of Madras]
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
Under the new tenancy legislation, namely, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of
2017, the Legislature has thought it fit to differ from the definition of “tenant”
under the erstwhile Act 18 of 1960 and under the new Act, “tenant” is defined
under Section 2(n), which is extracted hereunder:
(n) “tenant” means a person by whom or on whose account
or behalf the rent of any premises is, or but for a contract
express or implied, would be payable for any premises and
includes any person occupying the premises as a sub-tenant
and also, any person continuing in possession after the
termination of his tenancy whether before or after the
commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person
against whom any order or decree for eviction has been
made;
8.As far as the distinction is concerned, what is significantly different is
that on a plain reading of the definition of “tenant” under both the enactments,
is that, under the new legislation, a person against whom any order or decree for
eviction had already been passed does not fall within the purview of the
definition of “tenant”. The very same phraseology is employed to define
“tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as well.
However, at the same time, I am unable to countenance the argument of
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, that the
absence of inclusion of a person against whom any order or decree for eviction
has been made and required to be excluded from the definition of a “tenant”
under Act 18 of 1960. Though such an argument appears to be plausible, it
does not carry any merit. In fact, the very said issue has been specifically
addressed by this Court in K.V.Nayak’s case referred to herein supra, where,
this Court held that once an ejectment decree has been passed, then, the
relationship between the parties comes to an end and the defendant who
suffered an ejectment decree in the ejectment suit cannot fall within the
definition of “tenant” under Section 2(8) of the Rent Control Act. If at all, the
tenant had not suffered an order of delivery of decree for possession or eviction
order of any other competent court and continued to be in possession, then the
arguments of Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel can be accepted. The law
laid down by this Court in K.V.Nayak case would squarely apply to the facts of
the present case.
9.In any event, insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Heera Traders case is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
once an order of eviction or a decree for recovery of possession has been
passed against the erstwhile tenant, his status does not remain a tenant
thereafter, and his continuation to occupy the tenanted premises can only be
termed wrongful or unlawful. Even assuming that the benefit of the definition
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
of a “tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 can
be given to the landlord that it is not in pari materia with the definition of
“tenant” under Section 2(8) of Act 18 of 1960, when the very same issue has
been addressed by this Court in the Nayak’s case, therefore, the fair rent
petition that has been filed after the decree for recovery of possession is clearly
not maintainable. The mere fact that the Act was not extended to Poonamallee
at the time of the institution of the suit for recovery of possession cannot be a
ground to make Section 4 available to the respondent/landlord, by seeking to fix
fair rent after having obtained a decree for recovery of possession in a civil suit.
Yet another significant factor that weighs in my mind to accept the case of the
petitioner is that, at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of possession, the
respondent also made a claim for damages for use and occupation. The
damages for use and occupation that was sought for was only at the then
contractual rate of rent that had been paid by the petitioner. Nothing prevented
the respondent/plaintiff from claiming the market rate of rent towards the
damages for use and occupation. In fact, even the decree for damages for use
and occupation has not been diligently pursued and has been dismissed for non-
prosecution.
10.In the light of the above, I am unable to countenance the arguments of
Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that the Rent
Controller was entitled to fix the fair rent under Section 4 and had necessary
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
jurisdiction to do so. At the same time, having occupied the property until such
time, the petitioner/tenant vacated the same, the petitioner is obligated to pay at
least the contractual rate of rent of Rs.4,000/- per month.
11.The learned Senior Counsel on both sides are unable to immediately
ascertain the actual default of contractual rent that is liable to be paid by the
petitioner, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Though, I am allowing the
revision petition, setting aside the order fixing the fair rent for the tenanted
premises, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire arrears of rent at the rate of
the contractual rate of Rs.4,000/- per month, within a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if any.
12.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
14.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Uma
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )

CRP No. 5035 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI J.
Uma
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP No. 5035 of 2026
14.10.2026
`
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:15 pm )