__________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CMP. No.18451 of 2026 in CRP SR. No.91601 of 2026 K.Rajkumar (Died) 1.Deepa 2.R.Rakshana Raj Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs N.Logu @ Loganathan ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 154 days in filing the above Civil Revision Petition against the impugned judgment passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Coimbatore in RCA. No.60 of 2018 dated 13.08.2025. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan ORDER The petitioners in the revision petition are challenging the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No.60 of 2018. The petitioners are landlords. The respondent is the tenant admittedly. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.Thangavathana Balakrishnan. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the Tamil Nadu Buildings and Lease Control Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (in short 'Act') provides for a limitation of 30 days, with an additional 30 days available to be condoned under Section 25 of the Act, when the petitioners are able to satisfy the Court that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton and it was only on account of the petitioners not being advised properly and they were also undergoing financial crisis, the interests of justice, would be met only if the delay is condoned and the revisions are taken on file. 2. Notice is yet to be ordered to the respondents. However, on the face of the revision filed and the delay sought to be condoned viz., 154 days, I am unable to see how such an application is maintainable. 3. Section 25 of the Act, is extracted usefully hereunder:- 25. (1)The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority, call for and examine the record of the appellate authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly. (2)Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant: Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page3 of 4 further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the application had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section.] 4. It is thus seen that the Act being a self contained enactment, provides for limitation for preferring revisions before this Court under Section 25 of the Act. A revision petition challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority has to be necessarily filed within a period of 30 days. A further window of 30 days is provided under the statute, which can be condoned by this Court. However, beyond the said 30 plus 30 day period, a revision is clearly not maintainable. In such view of the matter, the application seeking condonation of 154 days, being way above the maximum 30 day period provided under the statute, cannot be maintained, leave alone entertained. In fact, the petitioners are the landlords whose eviction petition has been dismissed concurrently by the Rent Controller as well as the First Appellate Authority. Now the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act itself has been repealed and a new enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Act 42 of 2017, has been brought into force. Therefore, there is no impediment for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy under the new enactment. Therefore, the petitioners are not in any manner prejudiced also, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page4 of 4 P.B.BALAJI, J. rkp 5. In the light of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. 20-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Sub Judge, Coimbatore. CMP. No.18451 of 2026 in CRP SR. No.91601 of 2026 20.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis