(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act against fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2025 in R.C.A.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli by confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 24.08.2016 in R.C.O.P.No. 92 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli).

1. Heard Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sundar for the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3. The tenant is the civil revision petitioner.

4. He assails the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in R.C.A.No.29 of 2016, dated 04.12.2025 in confirming the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Controller cum Principle District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2013, dated 24.08.2016.

5. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. One Gnanasekaran, was the original landlord and the civil revision petitioner Murugesan was his tenant. The landlord approached the Rent Controller in 2013, pleading that the tenant, who has to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/- had defaulted in the payment of the same from May 2012 till June 2013. According to him, the arrears came to Rs.63,000/- on the date of presentation of the RCOP. Hence, he sought eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlord also projected another ground for eviction, namely, invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. He urged that his daughter is physically challenged and he intends to put up a photostat copying shop for his daughter so that she will earn and carry on her living in a dignified manner. Summons were served on the tenant.

6. The tenant took a stand that he has been in occupation of the premises for more than 12 years from the year 2001. He stated that he has developed his business under the name and style of 'M/s.Radha Metals' and if he were thrown out of the property, he would not find any other accommodation nearby to carry on the business. In addition, he pleaded that he had invested large amounts of money in the shop and that he is willing to pay any reasonable increase of rent that the landlord would seek.

7. He further pleaded that he had tendered the rents to the landlord, but the landlord had refused to receive the same. However, he undertook to clear the arrears of rent from May 2012 to June 2013, in case, the landlord is ready to receive it. He added that for the period May 2013 and June 2013, he paid the rents by way of electronic money orders. Yet, the landlord in order to generate a cause of action for filing the eviction petition, did not receive the same.

8. He further stated that he had issued a lawyer's notice on 02.08.2013 stating that in case the landlord continues with his attitude of not receiving the rent, he will file an appropriate application for deposit of the rents before the Courts below. Acting on the said notice, he had also presented a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P.No.180 of 2013.

9. The tenant also urged that fearing forcible dispossession from the property, he had presented a suit before the Vacation Judge at Tiruchirapalli in O.S.No.43 of 2013, which stood transferred, to the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli and renumbered as O.S.No. 637 of 2013.

10. On the basis of the petition and counter, the parties went for trial. On the side of the landlord, he produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On the side of the tenant, he produced Ex.R1 to Ex.R20.

11. The learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller found that the tenant had defaulted in payments of rent and that the bonafide purpose projected by the landlord deserves consideration. In particular, he relied upon Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 as well as Ex.P9 to conclude that the daughter of the landlord requires the area for carrying on her trade in embroidery and photocopier shop. He further pointed out that during the course of the eviction petition, the landlord in order to prove his bonafides had approached persons for purchase of photostat machines, as was evident under Ex.P8.

12. Consequent to the order of eviction, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.29 of 2016. The appeal came to be dismissed, in and by way, of an order dated 04.12.2025. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the same the present revision.

13. The learned counsel on either side circulated the contentions placed in the Court below.

14. I have considered the submissions of both sides and have gone through the records.

15. Two grounds of eviction had been urged. The first ground being that of a wilful default and the second one being owner's own occupation for non-residential purposes.

16. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, it is the specific plea of the tenant that he had paid the rents month-on-month without any default. A reading of the counter shows for the period May 2013 and June 2013, he had taken a stand that he had sent money orders in order to discharge his statutory liability to pay rents. Though the counter reveals the money order numbers, for reasons best known to the tenant, he had not produced the same during the course of trial. When the period of default is admitted and the defence taken is that the rents sent by money orders were not received by the landlord, the burden heavily lies on the tenant to show that, in fact, he had made a tender and it was the landlord who had refused to receive the same. This burden has not been discharged.

17. It is the duty of the tenant to pay rent month-on-month. In case, the landlord, for whatever be the reason, refuses to receive the same, the tenant always has the option to invoke section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Even at the time of invoking Section 8(5), the tenant is called upon to adhere to the steps that have been laid under the said section, step-by-step, and only thereafter, present the petition.

18. The evidence that has been produced by the tenant shows that none of the steps contemplated under Section 8(5) had been adhered to by him. Though filing of Section 8(5) is not mandatory, I am to it only for the purpose of showing the failures of the tenant to prove his case and the non-adherence to the statute. Hence, the finding on default does not require any interference (See, E.Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123).

19. The filing of the suit need not detain us for long. The relief sought for in the suit was that he should not be evicted, except otherwise in accordance with law. When the landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2013 seeking eviction, the cause for the tenant to have approached the Civil Court seeking injunction ceased to exist.

20. Turning to the second aspect of the case, namely, for owner's own use and occupation, the landlord has substantiated his case, by way of Government and medical records, showing that his daughter is physically challenged. It would be the desire of any parent, especially of one, whose child is special one and physically challenged, for settling him or her during his / her lifetime. It was in pursuance of this wish or duty, the landlord had approached the Court. The factum that the child is physically challenged stands proved by virtue of the aforesaid records. The steps that the landlord has to take to prove his bonafides under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has also been demonstrated by obtaining quotations from photostat machine manufacturers. In addition, he has also shown that the child has undergone an Embroidery Training Course. All these indicates that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide.

21. I should point out here that the revision is under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Though the scope of this revision is wider than a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this power of revision still does not enable this Court to re-appreciate evidence, which the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks this Court to do. While sitting in revision, I have to see whether the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have applied current position of law to the facts presented before them or whether there has been any perversity in appreciation of the same.

Unfortunately, for the civil revision petitioner, I find none.

22. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.29 of 2016 dated 04.12.2025 in confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2013 dated 24.08.2016 stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

23. At this stage, Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan states that the tenant has been carrying on business in the demised premises from 2001 onwards. He states the tenant will hand over peaceful possession of the property to the legal heirs of the original landlord without putting a third party in possession and also clearing all the arrears of rents, if time is granted. He seeks six months time.

24. This is opposed by Mr.R.Sundar stating that the original landlord had passed away pending the proceedings and his legal heirs seek to take immediate possession of the property.

25. Considering the circumstances that the tenant has been in occupation of the property for nearly two decades, I feel three months time would be reasonable for the tenant to wrap up his business in the area and find an alternate accommodation. The said time will be granted if the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking in the aforesaid terms.

26. The legal heirs of the landlord shall return the advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- that was received from the tenant, as undertaken by the original landlord, on the filing of the Rent Control Petition. It shall be co terminus with the tenant vacating and handing over possession.

27. Post the revision petition for the filing of undertaking affidavit on 10.03.2026.