CRP No. 3043 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 3043 of 2025 and CMP.No.17066 of 2025 Jai Hindu Leather Products Rep. by Paras, Old No.185 Broadway, 1st Floor, (Opp.Mannady Street, Above Hotel Excellant), Chennai - 600 108. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Musaafirkhana E Mariyambai (trust) Rep. by its Anjumn E Najmidawoodi Bohra Jamat, Sidhpur, Rep. by its Authorised Person, Mohammed Yusuf Madraswala, No.94 Boradway Chennai - 600 108. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 21-06-2025 made in IA.No.1 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.408 of 2024, passed by the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): MR.B.JAWAHAR FOR MR.Amar Dineshbhai Pandiya For Respondent(s): MR.S.Ramesh Kumar ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 01 of 2025. The petitioner/tenant filed the said application https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3043 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 4 before the trial Court seeking a copy of the trust deed pertaining to the respondent/landlord, contending that the respondent is not competent to maintain the suit in respect of the property. Accordingly, he disputed the right and title of the respondent. 2. The said application was dismissed by the Trial judge on the ground that the landlord-tenant relationship was not denied and, therefore, production of the trust deed was unwarranted. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as on date, the respondent is not the lawful owner of the property and, therefore, is not entitled to receive rent. He further submitted that the petitioner has a valid objection regarding the respondent’s right over the property and hence seeks a copy of the trust deed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been a tenant since around 1960 and has been regularly paying rent. At this stage, disputing the locus standi of the respondent/landlord is not tenable nor he is entitled to challenge the title. 5. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3043 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 4 order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To XV Small Causes Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3043 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 4 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. MPA CRP No. 3043 of 2025 and CMP.No.17066 of 2025 08-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis