Madras HC Holds Premises Age Irrelevant for Reconstruction

A single‑judge bench of Justice R. Sakthivel heard a civil revision under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application seeking the appointment of an Advocate‑Commissioner to inspect the rented shop premises in a rent eviction petition. The petition arose from an eviction suit filed by the owners seeking possession for alleged rent default and for demolition and reconstruction of two shops in Chidambaram after the tenant allegedly defaulted in payment.

The High Court dismissed the civil revision and upheld the Rent Court's refusal to appoint an Advocate‑Commissioner, holding that under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 the age, condition and nature of the demised premises were not material to the landlord's claim for reconstruction where the landlord was "ready and willing to commence the work." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As per Section 21 (2) (e) read with Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, age and condition of the rented / demised property is irrelevant. If the Landlord desires to improve, renovate, reconstruct or remodel their property and if ready and willing to commence the work, the Rent Court on an application, can order so. The question of age, condition and nature of the rented / demised premises does not arise at all. Hence, the defence that the rented property is neither very old nor in a dilapidated condition is of no significance. In such a scenario, there is no need to appoint Advocate‑Commissioner or a qualified engineer at all. The Rent Court rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022 and this Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the dismissal, though the reason assigned by the Rent Court is not justifiable. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition must fail." The Court also recorded that "there shall be no order as to costs."

Background
The dispute concerned two front shops (Door Nos. 3A and 3B) in East Sannadhi, Chidambaram. Ownership passed to Sarasa on the death of the original owner; the tenant's family had occupied the shops for decades. Landlords alleged that the tenant Anbalagan defaulted on rent from March to September 2019 and that the building was old and dilapidated, requiring demolition and reconstruction. The tenant denied default, disputed the claimed arrears and the condition of the building, and contended that the landlord lacked funds for reconstruction.

During trial, the tenant filed I.A. No.17 of 2022 seeking the appointment of an Advocate‑Commissioner to inspect and report on the age and condition of the premises. The Rent Court dismissed the application, reasoning that the age of the building could not be ascertained without a qualified engineer. After the tenant’s death, his legal representatives filed the present civil revision challenging that dismissal.

On consideration, the High Court held that Section 21(2)(e) and Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Act rendered the age and condition irrelevant to a reconstruction claim where the landlord was willing to commence works, and thus the defence about condition did not justify the appointment of an Advocate‑Commissioner or engineer. The Court found no illegality in the dismissal of the interlocutory application, even while noting that the trial court's stated reason was "not justifiable." The civil revision was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed; the Court ordered no costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023
NeutralCitation: 2026:MHC:1269
Case Title: R. Anbalagan (Deceased) & Ors. v. Somaraj Dheekshidar & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Krishna Prabhu
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suriya Badrinath for Ms. V. Srimathi

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 155