Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 15-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s. Agaram Recreation Club, represented by its Secretary Mr. S. Harichandran, Chennai.
  • Respondents: Paida Rajesh Kumar and Paida Sindhura, represented by Power Agent Mr. P. Vijaya Narayana Reddy.
  • The petition (CRP.No.6363 of 2026) sought revision under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order dated 24.06.2026 passed in RTLOP No.80 of 2026 by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which allowed repossession under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act).
  • The petitioner argued that the tenancy arrangement arose only after the TNRRRLT Act came into force, rendering the repossession ground unavailable.
  • The court observed that an appeal against the rent court order is available under Section 30 of the TNRRRLT Act before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, making the revisional jurisdiction of this Court inappropriate.
  • It also noted that the respondents had already filed an execution petition (E.P.No.894 of 2026) and obtained an order for delivery in the same Small Causes Court.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
  • The petitioner is granted liberty to file a regular appeal under Section 30 of the TNRRRLT Act.
  • The court stays further proceedings in execution petition E.P.No.894 of 2026 for a period of four weeks.
  • If the petitioner files a stay petition before the First Appellate Court, it will be dealt with by that Court.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Topics: Landlord‑Tenant Law, Rent Court Order, Appeal Procedure