(Prayer in C.R.P.No.3541 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in RCOP No.11 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

In C.R.P.No.5445 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to defer all further proceedings in RCOP No.11 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, until the final disposal of O.S.No.837 of 2023 pending before the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore.)

Common Order:

1. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3541 of 2026 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in RCOP No.11 of 2022, wherein the application filed by the petitioner to summon certain documents came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.5445 of 2026 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to defer further proceedings in RCOP No.11 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, until the final disposal of O.S.No.837 of 2023 pending before the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

3. Insofar as C.R.P.No.3541 of 2026 is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court that due to the subsequent development, nothing survives in this petition. Recording the same, C.R.P. No.3541 of 2026 is closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.15446 of 2026 is also closed.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2026, this Court, on hearing both sides, passed the following order:-

                   “Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

                   2. On going through the records, it is seen that the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, has passed an order in the Transfer O.P.No.45/2018 dated 12.11.2018 directing the suit filed in O.S.No.1063/2013 to be transferred to the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, to be tried simultaneously along with RCOP No.11 of 2012. Only the final order is available in the paper book and the fair order containing reasons is not available. Be that as it may, subsequently, the suit seems to have been transferred to the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore and the same is now pending in O.S.No.837 of 2023. However, the rent control proceedings are continuing before the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. In view of the same, both the proceedings are now tried by different Courts.

                   3. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed in the Transfer O.P.No.45/2018 on 12.11.2018 has been revisited or modified or set aside. In such a scenario, the fundamental issue that arises for consideration is as to how two different Courts can try the suit and the RCOP in spite of the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.45/2018 dated 12.11.2018. The conduct of the parties in participating in the proceedings without any demur does not in any way water down the order passed in the Transfer O.P.No.45/2018 on 12.11.2018 and this order cannot be disregarded on the ground of acquiescence.

                   4. In view of the above, this Court is more concerned about the procedure adopted in this case and without clarifying the same, no final orders can be passed in the present revisions. Hence, the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, is directed to submit a report before this Court as to how the suit was separated from R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2012 and made over to the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, even without taking note of the order passed in the Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018. While submitting the report, the original records in Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 shall also be sent to this Court. The report shall be received before the next date of hearing. Registry shall follow up with the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, to ensure that the report is received on time.

                   Post these revisions for passing further orders on 07.09.2026 at 02.15 p.m.”

5. Pursuant to the above order, a report has been received from the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. It is clear from the report that the order that was passed in Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018 has neither been modified, revisited nor set aside till date. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, has stated that the current discrepancy arose due to the fact that the Court was not informed properly about the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 while representing the plaint.

6. Be that as it may, the present dispute that has been raised in C.R.P.No.5445 of 2026 is on a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the property and a substantive suit has been filed in O.S.No.837 of 2023, which is pending before the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore. Therefore, till the said suit is disposed of, the proceedings in RCOP No.11 of 2012 must be kept in abeyance.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the above submission on the ground that the proceedings before the Rent Controller is at the stage of final arguments, whereas, in the suit, it is only at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the plaintiff.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the second proviso to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and submitted that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord, the Rent Controller should decide whether the denial is bona fide and if a finding is recorded to that effect, the landlord should be relegated to the civil Court to file a suit for eviction and if the Court finds that the denial of title is mala fide, that by itself becomes a ground for eviction.

9. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in East India Corporation Ltd., vs. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., reported in (1991) 3 SCC 230 and the relevant portions of which are extracted hereunder:

                   “9. What is stated in the second proviso to Section 10(1) is the sole circumstance in which the civil court is invested with jurisdiction in matters of eviction. But this jurisdiction cannot be invoked otherwise than as stipulated in the second proviso. This means that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a civil court is that the tenant should have denied the title of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy and the Controller should, on such denial or claim by the tenant, reach a decision whether such denial or claim is bona fide. Upon such decision, the Controller must record a finding to that effect. In that event, the landlord is entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. Where these conditions are satisfied, the civil court will have jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 or Sections 14 to 16, notwithstanding that the court has found that the tenant's denial of the landlord's title does not involve forfeiture of the lease, or, his claim of right of permanent tenancy is unfounded. Except to this limited extent, the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters of eviction of a tenant is completely barred and the jurisdiction in such matters is vested in the tribunals set up under the statute.

                   10. Significantly, the jurisdiction of the civil court can be invoked only where the Controller comes to a decision, and records a finding, that the denial or claim by the tenant, as aforesaid, is bona fide. If the Controller were to come to the opposite conclusion, no question of invoking the jurisdiction of the civil court would arise. But the decision of the Controller is concerned solely with the bona fides, and not the correctness or validity, of the denial or claim, for these difficult questions of title are by the statute reserved for decision by the appropriate civil court which is the more competent forum in such matters. (See the principle discussed in Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi.) In such an event, the civil court will become competent to pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 or Sections 14 to 16. On the other hand, if the decision of the Controller is that the tenant's denial or claim is not bona fide, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be invoked by the landlord and the Controller will then be the competent authority to order eviction, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, on any one of the grounds specified under the statute, including the ground that the tenant has, without bona fide, denied the landlord's title or claimed right of permanent tenancy. What is significant is that the decision of the Controller, duly recorded by him, as regards the bona fide denial or claim by the tenant is the condition precedent to the invocation of power of the civil court. Any suit instituted by the landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building falling within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the section, is, therefore, incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and any decree of the court in such a suit is null and void and of no effect.”

10. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in K.B.Nawabjan vs. Lodd Ramgopal and Others reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 580, the relevant portions of which are extracted hereunder:

                   “41. Therefore, I could understand from the aforesaid judgments that whenever denial of title of the Landlord has been raised by a Tenant, the bona fide nature of such denial has been decided by the Rent Controller as per Section 10(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Section 10(i) would run as follows:

                   "10.(1) A Tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 14 to 16:

                   Provided that nothing contained in the said sections shall apply to a Tenant whose Landlord is the Government:

                   Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the Landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the Landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the Tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded."

                   42. According to the said provision, I could see that the Second Proviso of Section 10(i) is applicable to the present case and if the title of Landlord has been questioned by a Tenant, such denial of claim should have been adjudicated as bona fide and if found bona fide, the Landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of tenant in a Civil Court on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 and Sections 14 to 16 of the Act.

                   43. In case, if the Rent Controller happened to find that the denial of title of the Landlord by the Tenant was not bona fide, he can straight away pass an order under Section 10(2)(viii) of the Act, which runs as follows:

                   "10 (2) A Landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied.-                (viii) that the Tenant has denied the title of the Landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bona fide, the Controller shall make an order directing the Tenant to put the Landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the Application:

                   Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, give the Tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the Landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected.”

                   44. However, on a careful perusal of the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and this Court, I could see that the Landlord has to resort an adjudication from the Rent Controller first under Section 10(i) of the Act regarding the bona fide denial of title of the Landlord by the Tenant and thereafter only, he can either get an eviction order from the hands of the learned Rent Controller or to approach the Civil Court for filing a Suit for eviction on the same grounds as mentioned in Section 10 and Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. These are the remedies or procedures available to a Landlord, who wants an eviction against the Tenant when the denial of title of the Landlord was made by the sub-tenant.”

11. By relying upon the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller must take a decision regarding the denial of title by the tenant and find if it is a bona fide denial or a mala fide denial of title. If it is a bona fide denial of title, the parties must be relegated to the civil Court, which will be the most competent forum to deal with the issue. If the denial of title is mala fide, there is no question of invoking the jurisdiction of the civil Court and the Rent Controller shall proceed further with the proceedings.

12. As pointed out in the earlier order passed on 28.08.2026, which was further confirmed by the report received from the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 was not properly brought to the notice of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, as a result of which the civil suit alone was transferred to the file of the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore and the RCOP is continuing on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

13. Due to the passage of time, the RCOP proceedings has reached the final hearing stage and the suit remains at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the plaintiff. Apart from that, when the order was passed in Tr,O.P.No45 of 2018, the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the same Court was directed to try the suit as well as the RCOP. Now that the pecuniary jurisdiction has changed and the suit has gone to the file of the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore, it is not possible to give effect to the earlier order passed in Tr.O.P.No.45 of 2018 dated 12.11.2018.

14. In view of the above, it will be more appropriate to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, before whom RCOP No.11 of 2012 is pending, to first render a finding regarding the denial of title by the petitioner in line with the Second proviso to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. If the Rent Controller finds that the denial of title is bona fide, the parties can be relegated to agitate their dispute in the pending suit in O.S.No.837 of 2023 before the V Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

15. On the other hand, if the Rent Controller renders a finding that the denial of title is mala fide, the Rent Controller can proceed further with the RCOP on merits and in fact, such a finding by itself becomes a ground for eviction under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.

16. The above clarification will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by both sides. There shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, to render a finding as directed by this Court in with respect to the issue of denial of title, after hearing both sides on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such an order is passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP No.11 of 2012, the proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.837 of 2023 shall be kept in abeyance.

17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.5445 of 2026 is disposed of on the above terms are closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.23596 of 2026 is closed.