(Prayer: PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the judgement and decree dated 22.11.2024 in RLTA.No. 103 of 2024 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai confirming the fair and decretal order dated 01.3.2024 in RLTOP.No.652 of 2021 on the file of the 13th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India as against the order dated 22.11.2024 in RLTA.No.103 of 2024 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai (for short, the Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the fair and decretal order dated 01.3.2024 in RLTOP.No.652 of 2021 on the file of the 13th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (for brevity, the Rent Controller) thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondents/landlords.

2. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned orders passed by both the Authorities below.

4. The respondents/landlords filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act) seeking to evict the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the ground floor and four portions in the third floor of the petition premises, for which, he agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-; that he was inducted as a tenant in December 2014 by the wife of the first respondent; that on her demise, the tenancy was attorned in favour of the respondents; that from the inception, the petitioner/tenant was highly irregular in paying the monthly rent and had rather neglected to pay the rent from August 2015 onwards; that the petitioner/tenant also instituted a suit in C.S.No.86 of 2020 on the file of this Court claiming a sum of Rs.1.50 Crores as if a sale agreement was entered into with the petitioner/tenant by the wife of the first respondent and also as if he paid the advance amounts; that a legal notice was issued to the petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over possession of the petition premises; that the same was not complied with and that there was no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondents on the date of commencement of the Act. It was under those circumstances, the eviction petition came to be filed before the Rent Controller.

5. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant filed a counter and took a stand that the petition premises absolutely belonged to the wife of the first respondent and that during her life time, she offered to sell the petition premises and received an advance amount of Rs.1.50 Crores and also executed a sale agreement dated 11.5.2017. The petitioner/tenant denied the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant with the respondents and he claimed to be in possession of the petition premises in his capacity as an agreement holder. The petitioner/tenant also filed a civil suit in C.S.No.86 of 2020 on the file of this Court for recovery of money and the same is still pending. Accordingly, the petitioner/tenant sought for dismissal of the said eviction petition.

6. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the stand taken by either parties and also the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the jural relationship between the parties has been established, that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the respondents/landlords would be entitled to the relief under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act and ultimately allowed the eviction petition by order dated 01.3.2024.

7. On appeal by the petitioner/tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the same by order dated 22.11.2024 confirming the order dated 01.3.2024 passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

8. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that at no point of time, the petitioner was inducted into the petition premises in his capacity as a tenant; that he has been enjoying the petition premises only in his capacity as an agreement holder; that a total sum of Rs.1.50 Crores was received as advance money by the wife of the first respondent, who was the owner of the petition premises; that however, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner/tenant even though he was willing to pay the balance sale consideration; that therefore, a suit has been filed by him before this Court for recovery of the advance amount together with interest; that apart from the same, cheques were issued towards repayment of the advance amount and the cheques, when presented, were dishonoured and that in view of the same, the Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute since the petitioner/tenant was questioning the very right and title of the respondents/landlords. Accordingly, the petitioner/tenant sought for setting aside the orders passed by both the Authorities below.

9. Per contra, it was submitted on the side of the respondents/ landlords that the petitioner was inducted into the petition premises as a tenant in the year 2014; that he was always irregular in payment of the monthly rent; that at one stage, he stopped paying the rent; that the petitioner/tenant also did not enter into the agreement; that therefore, the eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller; that both the Authorities below considered each ground in detail and allowed the eviction petition; and that the orders passed by them do not require the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.

10. The points that arise for consideration in the above revision petition are

                     (a) as to whether there was a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? And

                     (b) as to whether both the Authorities below considered the defence taken by the petitioner/tenant in a proper perspective while ordering eviction of the petitioner/ tenant from the petition premises ?

11. The so called sale agreement was entered into only on 11.5.2017. The respondents/landlords have taken a stand that the sale agreement dated 11.5.2017 relied upon by the petitioner/ tenant was a forged document and that such forgery could be ascertained on a mere glance of the document wherein the signature of Mrs.Gowri, wife of the first respondent, was found at pages 3 and 4 whereas her signature was not found at pages 1 and 2.

12. Both the Authorities below found that the petitioner/tenant was in occupation of the petition premises from the year 2014 and that he was occupying the premises in his capacity as a tenant.

13. This finding was rendered by both the Authorities below on appreciation of evidence and more particularly from the affidavit filed by the petitioner/tenant in Crl.M.P.No.5795 of 2021 on the file of the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, which was marked as Ex.P.6 wherein the petitioner specifically admitted that he was a tenant under the said Mrs.Gowri, who was the wife of the first respondent.

14. Both the Authorities below also took into consideration the evidence of the petitioner/tenant wherein he admitted that there was no rental agreement with the respondents/landlords after coming into the force of the Act. They concurrently found that the unregistered sale agreement relied upon by the petitioner/tenant, by itself, did not take away the fact that he was occupying the premises only in his capacity as a tenant. This factual finding rendered by both the Authorities below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. It is an admitted case that there was no written agreement between the parties and that therefore, the consequence provided under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act will automatically follow and the eviction can be ordered on this ground alone.

15. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction unless the orders under challenge suffer from manifest lack of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction that is not available or the findings are rendered, which, on the face of it, suffer from illegality or perversity. None of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case and therefore, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Authorities below cannot be interfered with merely because the petitioner/tenant is relying on a sale agreement of the year 2017, which is stoutly denied by the respondents/landlords as a forged document and there is no explanation on the side of the petitioner/ tenant as to under what capacity, he was in possession of the petition premises from 2014 to 2017. The mere ipse dixit of the petitioner/tenant cannot be acted upon and the orders passed by both the Authorities below do not warrant the interference of this Court. In the result, this Court does not find any merits in the above civil revision petition.

16. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.