C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21888 of 2025 1.Joker's Kitchen, A Partnership firm represented by its Partners, Having place of business at No.25, Crescent Road, West Shenoy Nagar, Chennai -600 030. Also at No.123, 124, 1st Floor, Ispahani Centre, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034. 2.H.Shakthi Poornima, Partner of Joker's Kitchen, Having office at No.25, Crescent Road, West Shenoy Nagar, Chennai -600 030. 3.S.Vijayalakshmi, Partner of Joker's Kitchen, Having office at No.25, Crescent Road, West Shenoy Nagar, Chennai -600 030. Petitioner(s)/Defendant(s) Vs Tamil Nadu Real Estate Private Limited, Represented by its Director and Authorized Person, P.Kesan, Having Office at No.123, 124, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. Respondent(s)/Plaintiff(s) p. 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.820 of 2024 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Ms.P.Keerthana for M/s.Murali Law Firm For Respondent(s): Mr.A.E.Ravi Chandran ORDER Challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.820 of 2024 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred the present civil revision petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.820 of 2024 before the XVIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking the relief of recovery of possession of suit schedule premises from the revision petitioners/defendants and to pay a sum of Rs.11,45,708/- towards arrears of rent, etc. and interest at the rate of 18% per annum on such arrears amount. Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 The revision petitioners/defendants have filed their written statement, necessary issues were framed, the respondent/plaintiff was also examined as PW1. At that stage, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.820 of 2024 under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC to pass a judgment and decree based on the admissions made by the revision petitioners/defendants in their written statement-cum- counterclaim, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises from the revision petitioners/defendants. After hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 04.03.2025, allowed the application. 3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred this present civil revision petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants would submit that the Court below committed an error in deciding the recovery of possession solely on the basis of the alleged admissions in the written statement under Order XII Rule 8 r/w Section 151 CPC, ignoring the fact that the so-called admissions were p. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 neither clear, unconditional nor unambiguous and were in fact accompanied by substantial disputes, serious allegations and pending counterclaim. She would further submit that the Court below failed to consider that the revision petitioners/defendants had raised bona fide disputes regarding the actual extent of the rental premises, excess rent paid, non-maintenance of premises, statutory violations like non-registration of rental agreement and suppression of material facts. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that there is no reason that warrants interference of this Court in the impugned order passed by the Court below. He would further submit that subsequent to the impugned order, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an execution petition in E.P.No.740 of 2025 before the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in which, the following order was passed on 30.06.2025: “DH counsel present. Delivery warrant executed. Bailiff report verified. DH counsel uploaded full satisfaction. Memo possession handed over to DH. Full satisfaction recorded. EP is terminated.” p. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 6. It is seen from the pleadings of the revision petitioners/defendants that they have admitted that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and they have been inducted as tenants under the rental agreement dated 16.03.2022 to run their restaurant. It is also seen that the revision petitioners/defendants have chosen to file as many as ninty seven exhibits, along with the written statement. The plaintiff/respondent has chosen to file the application based on the admissions made by the revision petitioners/defendants in their written statement-cum-counterclaim. Therefore, the Court below has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, possession has been handed over to the respondent/plaintiff by filing appropriate execution proceedings and the same was also terminated after recording full satisfaction. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this revision petition. Hence, this civil revision petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. The Court below is requested dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. p. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 13.10.2025 nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes; Neutral Citation:Yes/No To The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. M.JOTHIRAMAN J. nsd C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 p. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4262 of 2025 13.10.2025 p. 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis