V.K. Kumaresan vs. P. Jayaseelan

V.K. Kumaresan vs. P. Jayaseelan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
TR.C.M.P.No.942 of 2019
V.K Kumaresan
P. Jayaseelan
Date of Judgement
19 Feb. 2020

Facts of the Case:

The building of the respondent / landlord, a Doctor was rented to the petitioner / tenant (hereafter referred to as the landlord and tenant), who is an Advocate by profession on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/- and the schedule property is measured to an extent of 1113 sq.ft. Since the tenant was irregular in payment of rent and the tenant has been using the property like a dumbing yard, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises and pursuant to his refusal, the landlord was forced to file RCOP No.24 of 2010 in addition to filing an interim application in I.A.No.23 of 2015 for recovery of arrears. The said RCOP was allowed on 09.09.2015 in favour of the landlord and the landlord was also directed to deposit the rental arrears of Rs.1,94,000/- before the Court. Subsequent thereto, the landlord filed E.P.No.95 of 2015 for eviction of the tenant from the tenancy premises, against which, the tenant filed E.A.No.183 of 2017 on the ground that he had filed an appeal against the order passed in RCOP. The landlord preferred I.A.No.67 of 2017 for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.2,44,800/-, which was allowed on 26.07.2017 with a direction to the tenant to pay the arrears. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant filed CRP No.2792 of 2017, in which an interim stay was granted with a condition to deposit 50% of the rental arrears and thereafter, the main CRP itself was disposed of by this Court on 11.01.2018. This Court, while disposing of the CRP, had directed the Lower Court to dispose of I.A.No.137 of 2015 filed by the tenant against the RCOP order.


  • Whether it is averred that there was a tenancy agreement between him and the landlord and he had cleared the entire dues due to the landlord?
  • Whether the landlord requested the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the property for setting up a clinic?

Arguments from the Petitioner:

It is averred that there was a tenancy agreement between him and the landlord and he had cleared the entire dues due to the landlord. It is further averred that when there is no default on TR.C.M.P.No.942 of 2019 part, he cannot be evicted. The petitioner seeks transfer of the case on the ground of purported bias shown by the Principal Sub-Ordinate Court, Vellore.


The directions issued by this Court may appear beyond the purview of a Transfer Petition; this Court is empowered to moulde the relief by invoking the inherent powers of this Court as provided under Section 151 of CPC to pass orders to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Unless such person with unprofessional conduct is dealt with an iron hand, the noble profession cannot be safeguarded and if this kind of Advocate is not taught a lesson, it will definitely set a bad precedent to the Public and create a bad image about Lawyers in the society, as the person in TR.C.M.P.No.942 of 2019 like the petitioner ought to be nipped at the bud itself and it is for the Bar Council to decide on the same. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Edited by Sree Ramya

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje

I am Arun.M, Student of BBA-LLB(Hons.) at Nehru Academy Of Law under the University of Calicut. Being a law student I had attended different international and national seminars organized by different universities and an active participant in moot courts. My future aim is to pursue LLM on International Business Laws.