Ownership alone does not establish the landlord–tenant relationship required for rent-control eviction.

The petitioners, legal heirs of the owners of a property comprising residential and non-residential portions, filed ten eviction petitions alleging wilful default and denial of title.

The tenants disputed any landlord–tenant relationship and asserted that the petitioners had not let the premises to them.

The Rent Controller ordered eviction, relying principally on oral evidence and a “balance of probabilities,” while the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed those orders, finding that the petitioners had established ownership but not the landlord–tenant relationship.

The petitioners challenged the appellate orders under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961.

1. Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in finding that the petitioners had failed to establish a landlord–tenant relationship with the respondents.

2. Whether the appellate findings disclosed an error of law or perversity warranting interference under the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act.

Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961 confers revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality, correctness, propriety and regularity of the impugned order; it does not permit the High Court to act as a first appellate court or routinely reappreciate evidence.

Interference may be justified where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, reached without considering material evidence, or affected by an error of law.

The landlord bears the burden of proving the jural relationship, particularly where it is specifically disputed; ownership alone does not establish that relationship, and the Rent Controller cannot proceed to determine eviction grounds unless the jurisdictional relationship is established.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions on the limits of rent-control revisional jurisdiction: Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu, (2000) 2 SCC 135; V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka, (2006) 9 SCC 606; Rukminiamma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499; and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.

The appellate authority had examined the evidence and given reasons for concluding that the documents relied on—where produced, including rental receipts, agreements, a memorandum of understanding and notices—did not reliably establish the tenancy; some documents had also been introduced without corresponding pleadings.

The Rent Controller’s reliance on a general “balance of probabilities” did not cure the failure to prove the essential landlord–tenant relationship, which was not a matter to be presumed from ownership.

As the appellate findings were reasoned and supported by its assessment of the evidence, the High Court found no perversity or legal error warranting revision.

It left the petitioners at liberty to pursue their remedies before the competent civil court; there was no order as to costs.