R.Vasan v. Mr.V.NallasenapathyFor Respond
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CRP No. 3525 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01-07-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSECRP No. 3525 of 20261. Selva MobilesRep by Thangaraj, Old no.181/2, New No.2, North Usman Road, T,Nagar, Chennai 600 017Petitioner(s)Vs1. R.VasanRespondent(s)PRAYERCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of dismissal dated 07.04.2026 passed in MP No.4 of 2026 in RLTOP No.645 of 2025 by the XIV Small Causes Court at Chennai and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):Mr.V.NallasenapathyFor Respondent(s):Notice dispensed withORDERThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in M.P. No. 4 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P. No. 645 of 2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3525 of 20262. Under the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, seeking refund of the advance amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent, has been dismissed on the following grounds:a) That there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner;b) The agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent is not a registered agreement; andc) There is a variation in the claim of advance amount/security deposit as claimed by the petitioner and the respondent.3.
Operative part
It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, an appeal has been filed in R.L.T.A. No. 96 of 2026 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. When the eviction order has been challenged by the petitioner, the question of granting refund of the advance amount to the petitioner does not arise.4. Section 24 of the Act, 2017, makes it clear that the landlord will have to refund the advance amount to the tenant before recovery of possession of the property. Admittedly, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3525 of 2026even now. Therefore, the Court below, under the impugned order, has rightly rejected the petitioner's application seeking for refund of the advance amount from the respondent.5. This Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.01-07-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/NoabToThe XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3525 of 2026ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.abCRP No. 3525 of 2026 01-07-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 07 Apr 2026. The bench was ABDUL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.