Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 08-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Mrs. Alima Bee, Mr. Ishaq, Mr. Abdullah (private trust) filed Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 2573 of 2021) under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, challenging the decree and order of eviction dated 21‑06‑2006 passed by the Small Causes Court, Chennai.
  • Respondent: M/s. Razia Sultana Waqf Alal Aulad (P) Trust, represented by trustees Mrs. Ajmunnisa, Razia Sultana, Badru Jehan.
  • The dispute concerned a non‑residential first‑floor premises (Hall No.8, Chicken Shop) at Door No.82, Ponnappa Mudali Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai, let at a monthly rent of Rs 2,000 (excluding electricity).
  • Petitioners alleged wilful default in rent payment from March 2002 onward, claiming arrears of Rs 62,000 for March 2002‑September 2004. Respondents contended the tenancy was on a daily basis (Rs 118 per day) and that rent had been regularly paid to agents Anwar Bai and Abubakkar Bai.
  • The trial court found a landlord‑tenant relationship, accepted the monthly rent claim, and calculated arrears for 61 months (March 2002‑May 2006) at Rs 1,22,000, of which only Rs 13,260 had been paid, leaving a balance of Rs 1,08,740.
  • The appellate court (Small Causes Court VII – Chennai) affirmed the trial court’s findings, rejecting the licence‑fee argument, noting lack of documentary evidence for daily rent, and confirming wilful default.
  • The appellate court also noted that during pendency of the appeal, the landlords filed M.P. No.392 of 2018 under Section 11(4) of the Act seeking arrears up to January 2018; the petitioners paid Rs 4,20,517 only after High Court directions in CRP Nos.2966 and 3017 of 2018.
  • Counsel for petitioners argued that only a daily licence fee was payable and that the rent‑control provisions were inapplicable; counsel for respondents countered that the original tenant Mohammed Jani Sahib (deceased 08‑04‑2000) had a monthly tenancy, later continued by his heirs, and that the Power of Attorney dated 26‑02‑1999 (Ex.R‑4) recognized the landlord‑tenant relationship.
  • The High Court examined the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence (exhibits P1‑P4, R‑4, P‑3 series cheques, etc.), finding the petitioners failed to produce any valid proof of daily licence payments or receipts.
  • The Court observed that defective cheques (Rs 1,870 and Rs 3,080) were returned, only one cheque of Rs 2,750 was encashed, and intermittent payments totalling Rs 13,310 were made in April 2005, underscoring substantial arrears.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, confirming the eviction order dated 21‑06‑2006 passed by the Small Causes Court.
  • The landlord‑tenant relationship was upheld; the petitioners were held to have committed wilful default in rent payment.
  • The petitioners were granted two months to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession.
  • No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Topics: Eviction, Rent Control