LOURDU MARIE SANTHO (DIED) 1.Periyanayagam vs CHANDIRAN

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:05.08.2026 Pronounced on:02.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
Review Application No.155 of 2023
and CMP. No.17680 of 2023
Lourdu Marie Santho (Died)
1.Periyanayagam
2.Anthonia Santho ..Petitioner
Vs
Chandiran
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with
under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated
07.06.2023 passed in CRP. No.450 of 2021 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Subbiah,
Senior Counsel for
Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Sunil
ORDER
The Review Application has been filed by the respondent in CRP.
No.450 of 2021.
__________
Page of
1 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Elizabeth
Ravi, learned counsel for the review applicants and Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel
for the respondent/landlord.
3. The matter arises under the Pondicherry Building, Lease and Rent
Control Act, 1980. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:-
The respondent herein filed RCOP. No.51 of 2012 on the file of the Rent
Controller II, Puducherry seeking eviction of the review applicants on the ground
of denial of title, willful default in payment of rents and own use and occupation.
After enquiry, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition and aggrieved
by the same, the respondent/landlord preferred RCA. No.39 of 2018. The
Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and
held that the denial of title by the review applicants was bonafide and therefore,
the respondent was not entitled to seek eviction of the review applicants invoking
the provisions of the Pondicherry Building, Lease and Rent Control Act, 1980 (in
short 'Act').
4. As against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, the respondent/landlord has preferred CRP. No.451
of 2021, this Court by order dated 07.06.2023, allowed the revision and by setting
__________
Page of
2 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
aside the concurrent orders of the Courts below and ordered the eviction petition
filed by the respondent/landlord. The review application came to be filed and
listed before the very same learned Judge, who disposed of the revision petition
and the learned Judge has thought it fit to entertain the review and had ordered
notice on 13.06.2023. In fact, thereafter also it has been listed before the very
same learned Judge, but the review application has not been decided until the
superannuation of the learned Judge. Thereafter, the review has been listed
before me.
5. It is the submissions of Mr.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for the
review applicants/tenants that the review applicants had entered into an
agreement of sale on 08.09.1988 and the character of their possession changed
with the said agreement of sale and therefore, they were no longer tenants even
under the vendor of the respondent. Their possession as tenants became
possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. However, subsequently
the erstwhile vendor viz., erstwhile landlord has sold the property to the
respondent herein, who has chosen to initiate the eviction petition, alleging willful
default, denial of title and also seeking re-possession on the ground of owner's
occupation. Both the Rent Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
found that the denial was not malafide, but bonafide and hence, dismissed the
__________
Page of
3 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
eviction petition concurrently, holding that the proper remedy to recover
possession was to only approach the competent Civil Court.
6. It is also the submission of Mr.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel that in
fact, pursuant to the agreement of sale an unregistered sale deed was also executed
in favour of the petitioners by the four sons of the original owner, one
P.Kandasamy. However, without any reference to the same, the daughters of
Kandasamy, after lapse of 20 years, chose to issue a notice and thereafter invoked
the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and sought to evict the petitioners. He
would also state that there was a pre eviction petition notice issued by the
daughters of Kandasamy and the said notice has also suitably replied to, without
any delay.
7. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
suppressing all these facts, the four sons of Kandasamy, along with his two
daughters have conveyed the subject property, in and by sale deed dated
27.03.2012, in favour of the respondent and the respondent himself, on the
strength of sale in his favour, issued a lawyer's notice on 06.07.2012, which was
suitably replied to by the review applicants/tenants. The learned Senior Counsel
therefore states that exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, no doubt
__________
Page of
4 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
this Court had power to set aside the concurrent findings, but when this Court had
committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record, then it is
permissible for this Court to review the order, setting aside the concurrent
findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
8. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on
the following decisions:-
(i) Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others, reported in
(1954) 2 SCC 881;
(ii) Thungabhadra Industries Ltd Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur,
reported in, 1963 SCC Online SC 94;
(iii) Inderchand Jain (D) through LRs Vs. Motilal (D) through LRs.,
reported in, 2009 (5) CTC 365;
(iv) Azhagammai Vs. R.Ramanathan and another, reported in, 2025 (4)
CTC 248;
(v) Chandiran Vs. Lourdu Marie Santho (Died) and others, reported in
2023-3-L.W.838;
(vi) Tribhunvanshankar Vs. Amrutlal, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788; and
__________
Page of
5 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
(vii) Nestore and another Vs. Mrs.Regeena and others, reported in, 2021-
1-L.W.245.
9. Per contra, Mr.P.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlord would firstly contend that the review is not an appeal in
disguise and having not preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it was not open to the review applicants to seek review before
this Court. Even on the merits, he would contend that the review applicants are
admittedly agreement holders and that the claim based on an unregistered sale
deed was clearly unworthy of even being looked into. He would further state that
the claim for part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 also does not arise, since the agreement had to be registered to enable the
agreement holder to claim right of part performance under Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He would also state that the review applicants,
by their own conduct, in not having filed a suit for specific performance, had lost
their right to even enforce the alleged sale agreement against the four sons of
Kandasamy and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any protection either
under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act or even contend that their
denial of the title of the respondent is bonafide.
__________
Page of
6 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
10. The learned counsel Mr.P.Sunil, has relied on the following
judgements:-
(i) Ashrafi Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86;
(ii) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat and others,
reported in, AIR 2003 Gujarat 157;
(iii) Spanco Limited Vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services
Limited, reported in, 2010(6) ALLMR 572;
(iv) Palani @ Boologanathan and Others Vs. Thananjayan @ Murugesan
(died) and others, reported in, (2019) 7 MLJ 662; and
(v) Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitra Devi and others, reported in, 1998
(I) CTC 25.
11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side.
12. I am conscious of the fact that the scope of a review application is
very limited. Order 47 of CPC deals with the power of review and the scope of
review has been elaborately dealt with in a number of cases by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and it is by now well settled law that a review is not an appeal in
__________
Page of
7 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
disguise and in a review application, a Court cannot review, recall or modify its
own order, even if erroneous findings have been rendered by the Court, in such
event, the proper remedy being only an appeal or revision, as the case may be.
Keeping the power of this Court in review jurisdiction in mind, I proceed to test
the merits of the grounds seeking review. As already noticed herein above, the
fact that the very same Judge who allowed the revision and ordered eviction has
thought it fit and proper to entertain the review application, cannot be lightly
brushed aside.
13. Under the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1980 which are pari materia to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, one of the grounds for evicting a tenant
is when there is a malafide denial of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
The very application of the Rent Control Act, comes into play only when there is
a jural relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of a building and not even
just vacant land. In such circumstances, the legislature has incorporated a
provision to enable a landlord to seek eviction when the tenant denies the very
existence of a landlord and tenant relationship. It is trite law that the issue of title
cannot be gone into by a Rent Control Court and it can be decided only by a
Competent Civil Court.
__________
Page of
8 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
14. The order which is now sought to be reviewed, is in fact a reported
judgment in 2023 3 L.W. 838. This Court proceeded to reverse well considered
findings, after elaborate trial before the Rent Controller and such findings being
affirmed on re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority. On the premise that the review applicants have not
produced any documents to prove their title, this Court set aside the concurrent
findings and ordered eviction.
15. As already stated hereinabove, the question of title is alien to enquiry
under the Rent Control Act, be it the Pondicherry enactment or the Tamil Nadu
enactment. It is a matter which is within the domain of the Civil Courts alone.
The denial that is contemplated as a ground for eviction is restricted to an
enquiry as to whether the tenant has denied the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant, on the facts and circumstances of the case before the Rent Controller and
has got nothing to do with the title of the subject property.
16. Though Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the facts
which revolve only around whether the denial is bonafide or not, since the same
cannot be gone into in a review application, I am not looking into any of those
__________
Page of
9 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
decisions relied in respect of the merits of the revision but I am restricting my
discussion only with regard to the power of the Review Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. State Sale Tax Officer and others,
reported in 2024, 2 SCC 362, held that:-
(1) A Judgement is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(2) A Judgement pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances
of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do
so.
(3) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected
by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the fact of record justifying the Court to exercise its
power of review
(4) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be" reheard
and corrected"
(5) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be" an appeal in disguise"
(6) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided
(7) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not
require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where
__________
Page of
10 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
there may conceivably be two opinions
(8) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment
of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-S.114 and Or. 47-
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Or. XLVII (Para16).
17. Keeping these general principles in mind if I find that this Court has
committed an error which is apparent on a mere reading of the order under
review, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the error straightaway strikes at
the root and there is no requirement of any long drawn process of reasoning on
any point, on which there may be two opinions. As held by this Court in
Azhagammai ’s case, (referred herein supra) referred herein supra, when the
Court has missed the main fulcrum of the plaint upon which, the suit revolved,
then it is the duty of the Court to review the erroneous order and ensure that
there is no miscarriage of justice.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath ’s case (referred
herein supra), also held that in order to exercise the power of review, it is
essential that the error must be self-evident and apparent on the face of the
record, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no exhaustive or
precise definition as to what is an error apparent on the face of the record and
__________
Page of
11 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
the same has to be left to the Court to determine the same judicially on the facts
of each case.
19. In Greenview Tea and Industries ' case, (referred herein supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in S.Nagaraj Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in, 1993 Supplement 4 SCC 595 , held that it is the duty of
the Court to rectify, revise and recall its order as and when it is brought to its
notice that certain of its orders were passed on wrong and mistake assumption
of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious
consequences, especially because an act of Court should prejudice none.
20. Insofar as the decisions that have been relied on by Mr.P.Sunil, in
Asharfi Devi ’s case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court only
held that every error/mistake, factual or legal cannot be subject matter of the
review and only errors apparent on the face of the record would attract the
provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. With regard to the general principle laid
down in Asharfi Devi ’s case, I have no quarrel and I am bound by the ratio laid
down, which in fact which has also been reiterated by the several other judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
__________
Page of
12 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
21. In Parsion Devi ’s case, (referred herein supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court again held that if the error is not self evident and has to be detected by
process of reasoning, then it is not an error apparent on the face of the record,
which can be corrected in review. This Court in Palani @ Boologanathan ’s case
(referred herein supra), held that the review jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1
CPC, is only to correct mistakes and not errors in law or where different views
could have been taken on the point of law or fact or when subsequent judgments
can be applied to the judgment under review, thereby arriving at a different
conclusion. Similarly in Spanco Limited 's case, (referred herin supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court again held that the power of review is very limited in
nature and unless any one of the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 are made
out, the Review Court cannot exercise jurisdiction.
22. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad
Electricity Company Limited 's case (referred herein supra), also held that review
jurisdiction can be exercised only on the ground of error apparent on the face of
the record and not on any other ground. Keeping the above principles in mind
and as already discussed, and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the phrase
' error apparent on the face of the record' not being defined precise or
exhaustively or anywhere, it is left to the discretion and determination of the
__________
Page of
13 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
review Court to see if on the facts and circumstances of the case before it, there
is such an error apparent on the face of the records, I proceed to deal with the
case on hand.
23. The Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority
have concurrently found that the respondent/landlord entered the scene long after
an agreement of sale was executed by the four sons of Kandasamy in favour of
the review applicants, which was also followed up by an unregistered sale deed.
No doubt, no error was committed by this Court in not relying upon the
unregistered sale deed which is clearly inadmissible in the eye of law. However,
this Court did not notice the crucial fact that after such agreement and
unregistered sale deed, there was no payment of rent by the review applicants to
anybody, including the children of late Kandasamy and also the daughters of the
Kandasamy, who in fact, without reference to the four brothers who had entered
into an agreement of sale and also executed an unregistered sale deed, chose to
issue a lawyer's notice as if, they were landlords and called upon the review
applicants to vacate and after an effective reply was sent, no further action was
taken.
__________
Page of
14 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
24. Admittedly, the respondent has not been even put in possession of the
property purchased by him, since it has been in the continuous possession and
enjoyment of the review applicant. There has been no attornment of tenancy as
well. For more than two decades, the review applicants have been in enjoyment
of the property until such time, the property was purchased by the respondent, in
their own right and without any liability or any demand for payment of rent. In
such circumstances, the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, on assessing the oral and documentary evidence, rightly came to the
conclusion that the denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant was
bonafide and held that the proper remedy was open to the respondent was to
approach the competent Civil Court. However, this Court proceeded on an
erroneous assumption that the review applicants, in order to successfully deny the
right of the respondent/landlord, in a bonafide manner have to establish their title.
Rent Control proceedings are summary in nature and no detailed or roving trial
or enquiry is contemplated unlike a Civil Suit. Therefore, while exercising
jurisdiction under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1980,
it was not open to this Court to re-appreciate evidence and come to a different
conclusion that has been concurrently reached by the two Courts below. When
such conclusion is found to be erroneous on the face of the record viz., holding
the tenants guilty of malafide denial of title on the only ground that they have not
__________
Page of
15 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
established their title, which was totally alien in an application for eviction filed
by the respondent/landlord. The burden was wrongly cast on the tenant instead
of requiring the landlord to establish a case of denial, not being bonafide.
25. This Court is certainly well within its power to review the order in the
revision. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, no
elaborate process of reasoning is also necessary to reach a conclusion that the
error committed by this Court is apparent on the face of the record and the error
strikes and meets the eye on even a reading of the order and findings of the Court.
Hence, I am inclined to allow the review and the order.
26. In fine, this Review Application is allowed and the order in CRP.
No.450 of 2021, dated 07.06.2023 is set aside and the eviction petition in RCOP.
No.51 of 2012, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

02-09-2026
Index: Yeso
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
RKP
To
1.The II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.
2. The Court of Rent Controller-II, Puducherry.
__________
Page of
16 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )

Rev. Appl. No.155 of 2023
P.B.BALAJI, J.
RKP
Pre-delivery Order in
Review Application No.155 of 2023
and CMP. No.17680 of 2023
02-09-2026
__________
Page of
17 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 11:34:01 am )