Case Details

The Hon'ble XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai passed an order dated November 10, 2026, in M.P. No. 1 of 2026 in RLTOP No. 130 of 2026. The case was filed against the company by one of the co-owners of the leased premises where the company operates its hospital.

Proceedings Background

The main petition (RLTOP No. 130 of 2026) seeks dispossession of the company from a portion of hospital premises under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, on the ground of lack of written agreement. The case is at a very preliminary pre-trial stage.

Lease Agreement Details

The lease deed dated March 24, 2025, was jointly executed by all legal heirs of late Mr. A.N. Radhakrishnan in favor of the company. The lease commenced from December 1, 2024, for a fixed term of 11 months expiring on October 30, 2025, with monthly rent of ₹5,50,000 (excluding taxes), payable before the 7th of each succeeding month to all co-owners in their respective shares. The lease contained no provision for automatic renewal and required mutual consent for every further renewal.

Impleadment Petition

The order allowed M.P. No. 1 of 2026 (Impleading Petition) filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to implead the remaining co-owners/legal heirs of the late lessor: (i) Mrs. R. Gomathi, (ii) Mrs. Jayanthi Radhakrishnan, (iii) Mr. R. Rakesh, (iv) Dr. Gautam Srinivas, and (v) Dr. Aravind Srinivas as Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the main petition.

Court Proceedings and Arguments

The petitioner (Dr. G. Ra. Gokul) argued that impleadment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete adjudication. The company (1st respondent) opposed the impleadment, arguing that the proposed respondents should have been impleaded at the time of institution itself. Proposed respondents 2 and 3 filed counters stating they did not consent to the eviction proceedings and had not authorized the petitioner to initiate action on their behalf. Proposed respondents 4 to 6 filed a memo stating no objection to their impleadment.

Legal Principle Applied

The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006 (2) SCC 724) which held that a co-owner can file eviction proceedings without impleading other co-owners, but if other co-owners object, it may be relevant for impleadment to avoid multiplicity.

Court Decision

The court allowed the impleadment petition, ordering that all five co-owners be added as respondents in the main eviction case. No costs were awarded.

Financial Impact

As per the disclosure, there is no immediate quantifiable adverse financial impact on the operations of the company at this stage. The proceedings involve an interlocutory application in a pending eviction petition.

Receipt Date

The order was received by the company on November 12, 2026 (order uploaded on court records).