(Prayer: PETITIONS under Article 227 of The Constitution of India praying to

                     (i) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.16 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1740 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1040 of 2026);

                     (ii) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.17 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1744 of 2015 by the 11 Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1041 of 2026);

                     (iii) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.9 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 in RCOP.No.1724 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1531 of 2026);

                     (iv) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.15 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1738 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No. 1532 of 2026);

                     (v) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.18 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1741 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1610 of 2026);

                     (vi) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.12 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1731 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1617 of 2026);

                     (vii) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.10 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1727 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1621 of 2026);

                     (viii) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.11 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1733 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.1637 of 2026);

                     (ix) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.13 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1736 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.3040 of 2026); and

                     (x) set aside the order dated 04.4.2025 made in RCA.No.14 of 2024 by the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai and confirm the order dated 15.12.2023 made in RCOP.No.1737 of 2015 by the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (CRP.No.3041 of 2026).)

Common Order

1. These civil revision petitions have been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the individual orders dated 04.4.2025 made in the respective rent control appeals on the file of the 9th Judge (FAC), Small Causes Court, Chennai (hereinafter called the Rent Control Appellate Authority) reversing the individual fair and decretal orders dated 15.12.2023 made in the respective rent control original petitions on the file of the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (hereinafter called the Rent Controller).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned orders.

4. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Dr.A.K.Faziluddin (since deceased) and one Mr.Zainuddin (since deceased). The subject property, which contained (i) 5 non residential portions and (ii) 16 residential portions measuring a total extent of 4½ grounds absolutely belonged to one Dr.M.A.Karim. On the death of the said Dr.M.A.Karim, the subject property subsequently devolved upon his sons namely the said Dr.A.K.Faziluddin and the said Mr.Zainuddin. The said Mr.Zainuddin died on 23.11.2008. Hence, originally, the said Dr.A.K.Faziluddin and the legal heirs of the said Mr.Zainuddin initiated the rent control proceedings for eviction of the respective tenants on the ground of wilful default and denial of title. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the said Dr.A.K.Faziluddin died and his legal heirs were impleaded as petitioners 6 to 9 in all the eviction petitions.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and subsequent to the orders passed in the rent control appeals, 50% of the share belonged to the said Mr.Zainuddin was settled in favour of one Mr.Rafica Zainu Nishtar and 50% of the share of the said Dr.A.K.Faziluddin was settled in favour of one Mr.Mujib.

6. The further case of the petitioners/landlords was that when the tenants were asked to vacate their respective portions, all the tenants except one or two accepted to vacate the premises, but later, failed to honour their words; that they also wilfully failed to pay the rents from the year 2014 onwards; that the building was in a dilapidated condition and had required demolition and reconstruction; and that apart from the same, the tenants also denied the title of the petitioners/landlords. It was under those circumstances, the eviction petitions came to be filed before the Rent Controller.

7. Before the Rent Controller, the respondents took a stand that there was absolutely no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that at no point of time, the tenant had ever paid the rent since the petitioners were not the landlords of the subject property; that the superstructure was constructed by the tenants themselves/father or husband of the tenants; and that the tenants or the wife and the children of the tenants, as the case may be, were in possession and enjoyment of the subject property as the owners of the superstructure thereby the respondents/tenants sought for dismissal of the eviction petitions.

8. The Rent Controller, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the balance of probabilities would lie in favour of the landlords based on oral evidence and that they proved the jural relationship between the parties. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered for eviction of the respective respondents/tenants on the ground of both wilful default and denial of title, by separate orders dated 15.12.2023 in all the eviction petitions.

9. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents/tenants filed the appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, on appreciation of evidence and after considering the orders passed by the Rent Controller, came to the conclusion that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlords/petitioners should work out their remedy before the competent civil court seeking for delivery of possession and accordingly, allowed the appeals, by individual orders dated 04.4.2025 in the rent control appeals. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petitions have been filed before this Court.

10. Even at the outset, this Court has to keep in mind the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction exercised under the Act.

11. The consideration of the examination of evidence by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act is confined to find out that the finding of facts recorded by the Court/ Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. The High Court can also interfere if the finding of fact recorded by the Court/Authority below is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, in order to test the regularity/correctness/legality/propriety of the order impugned, should not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence, in which case, there is a possibility of the High Court giving a different finding on facts. The revisional power should not be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.

12. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramdoss Vs. K.Thangavelu [reported in 2000 (2) SCC 135].

13. A reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.M.Mohan Vs. Prabha Rajan Dwarka & Others [reported in 2006 (9) SCC 606].

14. A reference can also be made to the oft-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rukminiamma Saradamma Vs. Kallyani Sulochana [reported in 1993 (1) SCC 499].

15. The last judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that can be taken note of is in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh [reported in 2014 (9) SCC 78], which is a Constitution Bench judgment considering all the earlier judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

16. Keeping the above test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court will now carefully scrutinize the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who has reversed the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller, mainly on the ground that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been established in these cases.

CRP.No.1040 of 2026:

17. There were no documents either in the form of agreement or in the form of rental receipts. However, the Rent Controller rendered a finding, based on deposition of the respondent herein, that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

18. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord - tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on re-appreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/ landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondent/tenant and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondent/tenant. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1041 of 2026:

19. The only document that was relied upon was Ex.P.10 – legal notice, which was not believed by the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller, based on deposition of the respondent herein, came to the conclusion that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

20. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord - tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondent/tenant and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondent/tenant. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1531 of 2026:

21. The only document that was relied upon by the petitioners/landlords was the so-called rental receipts.

22. Curiously, in this case, the rental receipts pertaining to all the other eviction petitions unrelated to this eviction petition were also marked. However, the Rent Controller did not place reliance on the rental receipts and ultimately the Rent Controller, based on the deposition of the respondent, came to the conclusion that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

23. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord - tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on re appreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondent/tenant and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondent/tenant. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1532 of 2026:

24. Reliance was placed on the rental agreement marked as Ex.P.11 and the legal notice issued marked as Ex.P.10. Both the documents were disbelieved by the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller, based on deposition of the respondent, came to the conclusion that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

25. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord/tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on re appreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondent/tenant and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondent/tenant. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1610 of 2026:

26. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in this case mainly relying upon the deposition of the witnesses and rendered a finding that the balance of probabilities would lie in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that therefore, they successfully proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

27. Curiously, the petitioners/landlords had placed reliance upon Ex.P.11 – the rental agreement and also some of the rental receipts stated to have been issued to the father of one Mr.Babu (a) Hyed Basha and marked in RCOP.No.1724 of 2015 (CRP.No.1531 of 2026). However, since there was no pleading to that effect, the Rent Controller did not really place reliance upon those documents and instead, went only on the theory of balance of probabilities.

28. The Rent Control Appellate Authority took note of the rental receipts and came to the conclusion that the receipts did not contain the signature of the collector or the payer of the rent and that all the receipts did not substantiate the stand of the landlords for having been issued on collection of the rents and ultimately disbelieved those rental receipts. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also acted upon the agreements and thereby both the Authorities below had disbelieved those agreements. Ultimately, on re-appreciation of the evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reached the conclusion that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondents/tenants and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1617 of 2026:

29. Even though the petitioners/landlords placed reliance upon the rental receipts, the Rent Controller disbelieved them. However, the Rent Controller rendered a finding, based on deposition of the first respondent herein, that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

30. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord/tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondents/tenants and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1621 of 2026:

31. Even though the petitioners/landlords placed reliance upon the rental receipts, the Rent Controller disbelieved them. However, the Rent Controller rendered a finding, based on deposition of the second respondent herein, that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

32. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord - tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondents/tenants and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.1637 of 2026:

33. Reliance was placed upon Ex.P.10 – the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the rental receipts. The Rent Controller disbelieved the MoU and did not place strong reliance upon the rental receipts. However, the Rent Controller rendered a finding, based on deposition of the first respondent herein, that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

34. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord/tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondents/tenants and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.3040 of 2026:

35. There were no documents in the form of either agreements or rental receipts. However, the Rent Controller rendered a finding, based on deposition of the second respondent, that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

36. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord/tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondents/tenants and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

CRP.No.3041 of 2026:

37. The only document that was relied upon was Ex.P.10 – legal notice, which was not believed by the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller, based on the deposition of the respondent, came to the conclusion that there was a balance of probabilities lying in favour of the petitioners/landlords and that they proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

38. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, apart from rendering a finding that there was not even a scrap of material to establish the landlord/tenant relationship, also came to the conclusion, on reappreciation of the evidence, that the petitioners/landlords had proved their ownership over the subject property through documents, that however, they failed to establish that they were also the landlords of the respondent/tenant and that merely proving the ownership over the subject property did not mean that they were the landlords of the respondent/tenant. Sufficient reasoning was given to reach this conclusion.

39. In the considered view of this Court, in all these cases, the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was based on proper appreciation of the evidence and after considering the orders passed by the Rent Controller..

40. The Rent Controller proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners/landlords proved that they were the owners of the subject property and that they had also established that they were the landlords of the respondents/tenants based on the balance of probabilities. In the considered view of this Court, the very test that was applied by the Rent Controller was erroneous since the burden of proof was upon the petitioners/landlords to establish that they, being the owners of the subject property, were also the landlords and that there was a landlord - tenant relationship between the parties. This Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a matter of presumption and that it is certainly a matter of proof, which the petitioners/landlords failed to establish.

41. At this juncture, this Court wants to place reliance upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kesava Naicker Vs. Sivagnana Mudaliar [reported in 1980 Vol.93 Madras LW 484] wherein it was held that in cases where the relationship is disputed, the Rent Controller is expected to find out as to whether the denial is bona fide or mala fide, that if the Rent Controller decides that there is no such relationship, then the proceedings have to be terminated without deciding the main question of eviction, that if, on the other hand, it is found that the relationship has been established, the proceedings must go on to decide the grounds of eviction and that if the person in possession of the premises is not a tenant, the landlord will not be entitled to initiate proceedings under the Act.

42. A reference can also be made to the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.P.I.Badusha Vs. Gurusamy [CRP.(MD)Nos.1787 to 1792 of 2019 dated 01.12.2023] wherein it has been held as follows:

                     “14. The revision petitioner was not entitled to approach the Rent Controller and seek eviction on the ground of denial of title and own occupation. The burden of establishing the jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant exists only upon the revision petitioner / landlord, especially, in the light of the specific stand taken by the tenants at the earliest point of time, viz., reply notice. Despite such stand, the revision petitioner apart from examining the father, has not been able to satisfy the Court that he is a landlord within the definition of Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Act 18 of 1960. When the evidence of P.W.2 is pitted against the brother-R.W.2's evidence, the petitioner cannot take any undue advantage from the mere fact that the father supported him and entered the witness box and spoke about the settlement deed. Ownership of the property is entirely different from the concept of "landlord". In the instant case, the revision petitioner may be the owner of the petition mentioned premises, but in order to claim himself to be landlord, he would have to necessarily satisfy the condition stipulated in the definition clause, viz., Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

                     15. The Appellate Authority has rightly considered all these aspects and come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has failed to establish the landlord and tenant relationship and consequently, he is not entitled to eviction on the ground of denial of title or on the ground of bonafide own use and occupation. The Appellate Authority also found that the landlord has stated that there is no rental agreement between himself and the respondents/tenants. As already pointed out, the revision petitioner himself admitted in cross examination that he has not collected even one month's rent and the tenants have all been paying the rents only to his brother. The denial of title by the tenants, therefore cannot be said to be malafide.”

43. A reference can be made to the common order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in R.Valli Vs. G.Sridhar & another [CRP.Nos.267 & 357 of 2023 dated 04.6.2024] wherein it has been held as follows:

                     “11. At the outset I have to state that a Rent Controller is not concerned with matters of title. The jurisdictional fact that the petitioner would have to prove is that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. If this jural relationship is not proved, the Rent Controller, which is the Tribunal for a limited jurisdiction, cannot assume jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties. It might be true that the petitioner is the owner of the property. It is not for the Rent Controller to decide that issue. Civil Courts are functioning at Thiruvottiyur and Madhavaram and it falls to their jurisdiction to decide the title to the property. For the purpose of Rent Control proceedings, the Court would only have to see whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. If the relationship does not exist, the buck stops there and the petitions would necessarily have to fail.”

44. It is clear from the above judgments that the Rent Controller is not concerned with the matters of title, that it is the duty of the Rent Controller to see as to whether there is a relationship of landlord - tenant between the parties, that if the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist, the eviction petitions will have to fall to the ground and that thereafter, the owners of the property must only approach the civil court and seek for delivery of possession.

45. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on re-appreciation of evidence, reached a conclusion that all the documents that were relied upon by the petitioners/landlords would only establish their ownership over the subject property, that there was no reliable document, which would establish that there was a landlord - tenant or jural relationship between the parties and that therefore, merely proving the ownership does not automatically raise a presumption that there is a landlord – tenant relationship between the parties.

46. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority considered nearly 10 cases wherein the landlords were common and the tenant alone was different in each case and the agreements or the MoU or the rental receipts that were relied upon by the petitioners/landlords were not found to be of evidentiary value and there were concurrent findings in this regard. The documents like the agreements/MoU were brought in for the first time during the course of evidence without there being a pleading in the eviction petitions.

47. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The findings rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are based on consideration of the evidence that were let in by the petitioners/landlords and the findings on facts do not suffer from error of law warranting the interference under Section 25 of the Act.

48. Accordingly, the above civil revision petitions are dismissed upholding the impugned orders dated 04.4.2025 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is left open to the petitioners/landlords to work out their remedy before the competent civil court in a manner known to law. No costs.