(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2025 made in RLTA No.9 of 2025 on the file of XXI Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam as confirmed the order and decree dated 05.07.2024 made in RLTOP No.469 of 2022 on the file of XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. The tenants are the revision petitioners, challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal.

2. The respondent, as landlord, sought for recovery of possession on the ground that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement. The Rent Court, after giving an opportunity to both the landlord and the tenants to lead evidence, found that the contention of the respondents/landlord that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement is true and proceeded to order eviction. The tenants, challenged the said order of eviction, before the Rent Tribunal, unsuccessfully. It is as against the concurrent findings the present revision has been filed by the tenants.

3. Under the statute, the judgment of the Rent Tribunal is made final and binding on the parties and therefore, there is no right by way of statutory appeal available under the statute.

4. Be that as it may, the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is certainly maintainable. However, the restriction upon this Court to revise the concurrent findings passed by the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal is certainly limited.

5. I do not find and grounds warranting interference with the orders passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants came forward to file an affidavit of undertaking that the petitioners are willing to vacate the premises provided six months time is granted. In this regard, an affidavit of the first petitioner Babu dated 20.01.2026 is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent takes strong exception to the averments set out out in the affidavit where the first petitioner claims that he has paid an advance of Rs.15,00,000/- and there is only outstanding rent of Rs.2,00,000/- which is payable by the petitioners.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners are in huge arrears of Rs.29,00,000/- and he claims that the petitioners have paid Rs.15,00,000/- as advance is untenable and not even supported by any documentary evidence. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the petitioners before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal claimed to be of the owner of Sri Vari Auto Care, he would rely on an unregistered rental agreement dated 16.06.2021 which has been entered into by the first petitioner with one J.Junu S/o Jagannathan. It is therefore the specific allegation of the landlord that the petitioners have in fact sublet the premises.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would however state that there is no act of subletting and the petitioners are very much in control of the tenanted premises and seek reasonable time to vacate.

9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court, while dealing with the revision petition challenging the concurrent orders of eviction, cannot conduct any roving enquiry with the regard to the claims and counter claims with regard to the payment of huge advance, arrears of rent etc., It would suffice to confirm the concurrent findings of the Rent Court as well as Rent Tribunal by dismissing the revision.

10. Considering that the petitioners are carrying on business in the tenanted premises, I am inclined to grant time till 31.03.2026 to vacate and hand over peaceful possession.

11. Insofar as the recovery of arrears of rent , the respondent is at liberty to approach the competent civil court and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Equally it shall be open to the petitioner to file a suit for refund of alleged advance amount, if so advised.

12. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioners not vacating and handing over possession by 31.03.2026 and there being any obstruction by the said J.Juno or anybody claiming under Sri Vari Auto Care, such objections shall not be entertained.

13. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.