M/s.IZZI Tools Centre v. H.G.Sons Estates
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P B BALAJI
Outcome
Disposed of
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the light of the above, the order of delivery passed by the Rent Court is certainly not in order. However, considering the fact that the tenant’s appeal is pending in RLTA No.18 of 2026 before the III Additional City Civil Court Chennai, I…
Judgment
CRP No. 753 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJICRP No. 753 of 2026and CMP.No.3962 of 2026M/s.IZZI Tools Centre, Rep. Murtaza Bhai Miyajiwala, Having shop at Ground floor, Old Door No.12/13, New Door No.23, Perianna Maistry Street, Chennai 600 001. Correspondence address, No.11-A Singanna Naicken Street Parry’s Corner, George Town, Chennai 600 001...Petitioner(s)VsH.G.Sons Estates, Represented by Mohammed Yusuf Madraswala,S/o.Yusuf Madraswala, Having Office: No.194,Anna Pillai Street,‘STS’ Complex, Chennai -600 001...Respondent(s)Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 18.12.2025 made in E.P.No.1252 of 2025 in RLTOP No.507 of 2024 on the file of learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 753 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Petitioner(s):Mr.Samir Shahfor M/s.Shah And ShahFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.Ramesh KumarORDERThe tenant is the revision petitioner. The tenant is aggrieved by the order of delivery passed in EP.No.1252 of 2025, without notice to the petitioner/tenant as mandated under Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord states that the petitioner’s appeal is pending in RLTA No.18 of 2026 before the III Additional City Civil Court Chennai and the petitioner is not cooperating with the earlier disposal of the appeal.
Per contra, Mr.Samir Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner denies the said allegation and states that the proceedings are adjourned only on account of non availability of the Judicial Officer.
I have held, in the order dated 16.12.2025 passed in CRP.No.5723 of 2025 (M/s.B.D.V.S.Showroom vs. T.Rajendran), that under Section 39 of the Act, notice to the tenant/judgment debtor is mandatory and a pre-requisite https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 753 of 2026__________Page3 of 4before ordering delivery, and provisions of Order XXI of CPC will not apply to the proceedings under the said enactment.
Operative part
In the light of the above, the order of delivery passed by the Rent Court is certainly not in order. However, considering the fact that the tenant’s appeal is pending in RLTA No.18 of 2026 before the III Additional City Civil Court Chennai, I direct the learned III Additional City Civil Court Chennai to dispose of the said RLTA within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, EP proceedings in EP.No.1252 of 2025 shall be kept in abeyance. Subject to the result of the RLTA, it shall be open to the Rent Court to proceed with the Execution Petition, but it shall not be open to the petitioner/tenant to thereafter canvas before the Executing Court that he had no notice in the E.P.6. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.16-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoPVSToThe XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 753 of 2026__________Page4 of 4P.B.BALAJI, J.PVSCRP No. 753 of 202616-02-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.