logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7133 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CRP. (MD) No. 2383 of 2026 & CMP. (MD) Nos. 11621 & 11623 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
Parties : S. Leela Versus A. Micheal George
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.C. Herold Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Rajiv Rufus, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 24-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif, Thisayanvilai, in IA No.7 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P No.2 of 2026, dated 12/08/2026.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P No.2 of 2026, dated 12/08/2026, by the learned District Munsif, Thisayavilai.

2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in respect of the petition-mentioned property. The respondent/landlord filed R.L.T.O.P No.2 of 2026 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and for delivery of vacant possession of the petitionmentioned property, together with recovery of rent at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per month, compensation and other consequential reliefs. While the matter was pending before the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed I.A.No.7 of 2026 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 37(c) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, seeking to send the rental agreements dated 11/04/2021 and 15/04/2022 for expert opinion and comparison of the signatures found therein.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the R.L.T.O.P. has been filed on the strength of the rental agreement marked as Ex.P1, in which the respondent has allegedly fabricated the signature of the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent, with the assistance of the police, obtained the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner and registered the rental agreement without the petitioner's appearance before the Sub-Registrar. According to the petitioner, she never executed the said rental agreement and came to know about the alleged fraudulent rental agreement only during the proceedings in the R.L.T.O.P.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner has initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent alleging fabrication of her signature. According to the petitioner, the respondent has filed the R.L.T.O.P. only to harass her and to suppress the fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as advance to the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner sought to send the disputed rental agreement for comparison with her admitted signatures contained in the documents dated 10/06/2019 and 07/06/2020 through a handwriting expert, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the signature found in the disputed rental agreement and to establish that the same had been forged and fabricated. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

5. The respondent seriously disputed the said contention and filed a counter. It was contended that the petitioner had admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that having admitted the tenancy, it was not open to her to belatedly question the validity of the duly registered rental agreement. It was further contended that in the reply notice dated 17/10/2022 sent by the petitioner through her counsel, the petitioner had admitted the existence of an agreement between the parties. It was further submitted that the rental agreement was registered before the Rent Control Authority and that the petitioner had clearly admitted its execution and had herself marked the said document as Ex.P11.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also produced a typed set of papers enclosing the reply notice dated 17/10/2022 sent by the petitioner. In paragraph 3 of the said reply notice, the petitioner had admitted that both the petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement before the Rent Authority, Radhapuram, Valliyur, and that the same had been registered as Document No.TN-291603600428/2022. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that having admitted the agreement between the parties, the petitioner had subsequently taken a contrary stand only with a view to prolong the proceedings. It was also contended that the petitioner had not disputed the execution of the agreement in the reply notice and had only denied her liability towards the alleged arrears of rent. According to the respondent, the petitioner had also falsely claimed to have paid an advance amount of Rs.26,950/- by putting her signature in the relevant document. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the petition. The learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that the parties had entered into the rental agreement before the Rent Authority. The learned Rent Controller also noticed the discrepancy with regard to the dates, namely, that Ex.P1 bears the date 15/04/2022, whereas the tenancy was stated to have commenced on 11/04/2022 and the document was registered on 12/09/2022.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner had initially refused to hand over her Aadhaar Card and that, therefore, the respondent had approached the police officials and thereafter obtained the Aadhaar Card and proceeded with the registration of the document. It was further submitted that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act are summary in nature and that the petitioner, having admitted the agreement between the parties in her reply notice, cannot, at the stage of arguments, seek to have the signature compared with the signatures found in earlier documents. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had not disputed the existence of the tenancy in her reply notice. On the contrary, the reply notice itself discloses that the petitioner had admitted the agreement entered into between the parties before the Rent Authority. Her main contention was only that she was not liable to pay the alleged arrears of rent.

10. Having admitted the existence of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner has subsequently sought comparison of her signature in the disputed rental agreement with her signatures in earlier documents. The learned Rent Controller has considered the said circumstances and rejected the application. This Court finds no error or illegality warranting interference with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

11. It is also relevant to note that the proceedings before the Rent Controller are summary in nature. The application seeking comparison of the signature, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, appears to have been filed at a belated stage, when the matter was posted for arguments. The petitioner had not raised such a dispute in her reply notice and had, in fact, admitted the agreement between the parties.

12. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal