The central legal point established is that the failure to enter into a written tenancy agreement as mandated by the TNRRRLT Act can lead to the landlord's entitlement to seek eviction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in R.L.T.A.No.8 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Court.

2. The respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act (TNRRRLT Act). The respondent/landlord sought for eviction on the ground of failure to enter into a written agreement as required under the Act [Section 21(2)(a)] and also default in payment of rent [Section 21(2)(b)]. The respondent/landlord in his petition averred that the demised premises was let out to the Revision Petitioner in the year 2011 for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and he failed to pay the rent from July 2018. It was also specifically averred by the respondent/landlord that both the petitioner and the respondent had failed to enter into a written tenancy agreement as mandated by Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act and hence sought for eviction.

3. The Revision Petitioner herein filed a counter stating that he entered into a oral lease arrangement with the respondent/landlord during August 2011 by paying advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The learned Rent Controller after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the parties failed to enter into a written agreement as contemplated under Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act and consequently the Revision Petitioner is liable to be evicted under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner has preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority in R.L.T.No.8 of 2021 and the same was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the Revision Petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.S.Jim Raj Milton, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the typed set of papers.

5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent/landlord and he is only a usufructuary mortgagee and hence the respondent/landlord is not entitled to seek his eviction under TNRRRLT Act. He also submitted that the respondent/landlord has been avoiding the request of the petitioner/tenant to enter into a new written agreement as mandated under the TNRRRLT Act and hence there is no fault on his side and the failure of the parties to enter into a written agreement as mandated by the TNRRRLT Act is only due to evading attitude of the respondent/landlord.

6. At the outset, both the limbs of arguments made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner cannot go together. If he says that he is not a tenant and he is only an usufructuary mortgagee, he cannot say inspite of his request, the respondent/landlord failed to enter into a written agreement. Arguments made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner are mutually destructive in nature. The perusal of the counter filed by the Revision Petitioner/tenant in RLTOP No.20 of 2019 makes it clear that he specifically admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises during August 2011. He also went on to say that the lease arrangement was on oral basis. He also specifically pleaded that after coming in to force of the Act, he demanded the respondent to enter into a written lease agreement, but the respondent evaded his request. The perusal of the pleadings of the parties makes it clear that the Revision Petitioner admitted that he was a tenant under the respondent/landlord and he never pleaded that he was an usufructuary mortgagee. Further, he pleaded that he requested the respondent/landlord to enter into a written lease agreement. Even as per his admission, no written lease tenancy agreement was entered i