MEENA vs Kandhakumar

Court
Madras High Court

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26-10-2026
Pronounced on : 12.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011069832026}
AND
CMP(MD) No. 13989 of 2026
1. Meena
2. Senthilkumar
3. Sittrarasu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Kandhakumar
2. Kandhavel ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-37. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the
TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, to call for records pertaining
the impugned order dated 20-04-2026 passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2024 on
the file of the on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal /
Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam confirming the judgment and decree
passed in R.C.O.P.No.06 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif, Kumbakonam and set aside the same and consequently dismiss
the same.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s R.Narayanan
For Respondent(s) :P.Thiyagarajan
For R1 And R2
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order
passed in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2024 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, whereby the
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the order passed in
R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Kumbakonam, was dismissed, thereby confirming the order of eviction
passed by the Rent Controller.
2. The petitioner herein is the tenant, and the respondent
herein is the landlord. According to the revision petitioner, the
respondent/landlord instituted an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of
2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, seeking eviction
of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of wilful default in the payment of
rent, unauthorised construction, and subletting of the demised premises.
3. The Rent Controller rejected the ground of subletting but
ordered eviction on the grounds of wilful default and unauthorised
construction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal in R.C.A.No.3 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. However, the Appellate
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
4. The revision petitioner contends that both the authorities
below failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
available on record and arrived at erroneous findings with regard to the
alleged wilful default in the payment of rent and the alleged unauthorised
construction. The petitioner therefore submits that the concurrent findings
of the authorities below are contrary to the evidence on record and
warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority placed reliance
upon the admission made by the petitioner that the rent for a period of 45
months had been paid in a lump sum. However, the mere payment of
accumulated rent in a lump sum ought not, by itself, to have been
construed as wilful default without properly considering the
circumstances surrounding such payment and the evidence available on
record. The Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the
distinction between delayed payment of rent and wilful default in the
payment of rent.
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
6. With regard to the alleged unauthorised construction, the
Appellate Authority misconstrued the nature of the work carried out by
the petitioner. The petitioner's specific contention was that he had merely
replaced the old roofing sheets with new tin sheets, which, according to
him, did not amount to unauthorised construction. The authorities below
failed to properly consider the nature and extent of the work undertaken.
7. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner
was not the owner of the property and, on that basis, sought appropriate
relief against the impugned order. It was therefore prayed that the order
passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority be set aside and that the
eviction proceedings be dismissed, as warranted by the facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. On the other hand, the respondent/landlord contended that
the petitioner/tenant became a tenant in respect of the petition-mentioned
property with effect from 01.10.2014 and that a rental agreement was
entered into between the parties on 27.10.2014. As per the terms of the
agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,100/- for the
period from 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015, Rs.8,600/- for the period from
01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016, and Rs.9,100/- for the period from 01.10.2016
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
to 30.09.2017. The petitioner also agreed to pay the monthly rent on or
before the fifth day of every English calendar month.
9. The respondent further contended that the petitioner was
permitted to install a weighing machine in the petition-mentioned
property but was expressly prohibited from demolishing or reconstructing
the building without the landlord's consent. According to the respondent,
the petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The rent
due up to 31.07.2016, amounting to Rs.51,600/-, was allegedly paid only
on 03.11.2016. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner was in
arrears of rent for the period from January 2019 to June 2019, amounting
to Rs.60,600/-, which was stated to have remained unpaid.
10. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner had
unauthorisedly constructed a shed adjacent to the existing reinforced
cement concrete (RCC) building without obtaining the landlord's
permission. In this regard, the respondent issued a notice dated
24.07.2015, calling upon the petitioner not to sublet the premises. The
respondent also alleged that the petitioner had sublet the premises to
various persons. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to send
any reply to the said notice.
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
11. Upon hearing both parties and considering the materials
placed on record, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.
No.3 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, challenging
the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
12. The first appellate Court framed the following points for
consideration :
1. Whether the appellant is liable to be evicted on
the ground that he has not paid the rent ?
2. Whether they have constructed a new building in
the suit premises ?
3. Whether they are subletting the premises to third
party ?
13.During cross-examination, one Seenivasan, who was
examined as R.W.1, admitted that he used to pay the rent for a period of
four to five months at a time rather than paying the rent every month. On
the basis of the said admission, the learned Rent Control Appellate
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
Authority arrived at the conclusion that the tenant had not been paying
the rent regularly on a monthly basis.
14. Further, when the matter was taken up for hearing today,
the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that
the rent for the preceding year had been paid only in the month of
December. This submission further indicated that the tenant had not been
paying the rent regularly every month in accordance with the agreed
terms of tenancy. Taking into consideration the admission made by the
tenant during cross-examination and the submission made by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, the Rent Controller concluded that the
tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly and that it amounts to default in
payment of rent.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
submitted that the tenant had paid the rent up to December 2025, but had
not paid the rent from January 2026 onwards. However, the learned
counsel stated that the tenant was ready and willing to pay the
outstanding rent. This submission indicates that the rent subsequent to
December 2025 remained unpaid as on the date of hearing, thereby
supporting the contention that the tenant was in arrears of rent.
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
16. With regard to the ground of subletting, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority rejected the said ground, and the landlord had not
preferred any appeal challenging that finding. It was further admitted that
the tenant had renovated the demised premises without obtaining the
prior permission or consent of the landlord. The terms of the tenancy
specifically prohibited the tenant from carrying out repairs or renovations
without the landlord's consent. Therefore, even if the work undertaken by
the tenant was described as renovation, the tenant was required to
establish that the same had been carried out in accordance with the terms
of the tenancy.
17. On consideration of the materials available on record, the
findings of the Rent Controller, as confirmed by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, do not disclose any perversity warranting
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the orders passed by
the authorities below are liable to be confirmed.
18. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed and
the orders passed by the authorities below are hereby confirmed. The
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate and hand over vacant
possession of the petition-mentioned premises to the respondent/landlord
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RM
To
1. The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
2. The Rent Control Appellate Tribunal / Principal Sub Court,
Kumbakonam
3. The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026
AND
CMP(MD) No. 13989 of 2026
12-11-2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 05:01:26 pm )