Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court

No Jural Relationship” Defence Rejected Again – Supervisory Jurisdiction Cannot Become A Third Appeal, In a significant order under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act.

Justice P.B. Balaji, by order dated 06.01.2026, held that the identical defence questioning the landlord’s locus and the existence of a jural relationship had already been rejected in connected revision petitions concerning the very same premises. Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error, the Court declined interference in supervisory jurisdiction, though equitable time was granted to vacate subject to stringent conditions. A further order dated 05.02.2026 modified the payment schedule of arrears.

Background: Tenant Challenges Eviction Denying Landlord-Tenant Relationship

The petitioner, carrying on a non-residential jewellery business, challenged concurrent eviction orders passed in RLTOP No. 402 of 2020 and confirmed in RLTA No. 52 of 2025.

The core defence raised was that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent-landlord claimed rights as a legatee and foster son under a Will executed by the deceased owner, Gnanasoundari Ammal. The tenant contended that the Will remained unprobated and that the respondent was not the sole legal heir, thereby questioning his locus to initiate eviction proceedings.

Court Refuses To Re-Examine Issue Already Decided In Connected Matters

The respondent brought to the Court’s notice that in respect of the same premises, similar eviction proceedings against another tenant had been considered by the Court in CRP Nos. 4440 and 4442 of 2025. By order dated 23.09.2025, eviction had been confirmed and time granted till 30.04.2026 to vacate.

Justice P.B. Balaji observed that the defence raised in the present revision was identical to the one already considered and rejected in the connected matters. In light of the earlier decision, the Court held:

“In view of the fact that the issue has already been decided by me in a connected revision, I am not inclined to entertain the present revision.”

The Court thus reaffirmed the limited scope of interference under Article 227, emphasizing that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for re-appreciation of concurrent findings of fact.

Huge Arrears Of Rent Noted By Court

The landlord opposed grant of further time on the ground that the tenant was in substantial arrears of Rs.2,62,300/-, representing 43 months’ rent at Rs.6,100/- per month.

It was an admitted position that the landlord had been constrained to initiate Distress Application No. 3 of 2025, which was allowed, and pursuant thereto a sum of Rs.67,100/- had been paid. However, no further rents were paid thereafter during pendency of the appeal before the Rent Tribunal.

The Court took note of the continued default while balancing equities.

Time Granted Till 30.06.2026 Subject To Strict Conditions

Though declining to interfere with the eviction orders, the Court considered that the petitioner was running a non-residential jewellery business in the premises and granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to strict compliance with conditions.

The Court directed that the tenant shall file an affidavit of undertaking to vacate and hand over vacant possession on or before 30.06.2026, shall not induct any third party by subletting, and shall clear the entire arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- within four weeks from 06.01.2026. The affidavit was to be filed on or before 23.01.2026.

With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

Further Order On 05.02.2026 – Instalments Permitted

The matter was later mentioned before the Court. On 05.02.2026, the tenant informed the Court that Rs.62,300/- had been paid on 04.02.2026 and sought time to pay the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- in four instalments.

Recording the submission, the Court modified the earlier condition and directed payment of Rs.50,000/- each on or before the 5th of March, April, May and June 2026.

The Court further directed that rent from January 2026 onwards shall be paid in advance on or before the 10th of every month, with rent for January 2026 to be paid on or before 10th February 2026.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not A Substitute For Appeal

The judgment reinforces that Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. In the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, the High Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible.

At the same time, the Court balanced equities by granting reasonable time to vacate, subject to strict compliance with payment obligations and filing of undertaking.

Date of Main Order: 06.01.2026