ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside docket order in RLTOP No. 784 of 2021 dated 06.12.2022 on the file of XI Small Causes Court at Chennai.

1. The Docket Order dated 06.12.2022 passed in RLTOP No. 784 of 2021 pending on the file of XI Small Causes Court at Chennai, is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein filed RLTOP No. 784 of 2021 for eviction under Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred as ‘TNRRRLT Act’ in short]. During the pendency of the RLTOP the respondent/landlord has not pressed the grounds raised under Sections 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g) of the TNRRRLT Act. Thus, the eviction petition is pending on the sole ground between the tenant and the landlord.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Rent Court in the name of summary enquiry examined the landlord as PW-1 with regard to the mandatory compliance of Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act. No cross- examination was allowed by the Rent Court and the Rent Court is proceeding to pass an order based on the mandatory compliance of Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act and accordingly, the case was posted for enquiry of the tenant. In this regard, the Docket order passed on 06.12.2022 in RLTOP No. 784 of 2021 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court at Chennai and the said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the name of summary trial, the Court is proceeding for inquiry without insisting for an affidavit to be filed by the landlord. The failure in this regard was considered as procedural irregularity and not an illegality. Accordingly, the case was listed for examination of the tenant with regard to the mandatory compliance under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act. Thus, the said Docket order is to be set aside.

5. Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act stipulates that “Where, in relation to a tenancy created before the commencement of this Act, no agreement in writing was entered into, the landlord and the tenant shall enter into an agreement in writing with regard to that tenancy within a period of five hundred and seventy five days from the date of commencement of this Act:

Provided that where the landlord or tenant, fails to enter into an agreement under this Sub-Section, the landlord or tenant shall have the right to apply for termination of the tenancy under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 21.”

6. Thus, the spirit of provision is unambiguous that the tenant and the landlord have to enter into an agreement in writing with regard to the tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of this Act. If no such agreement in writing has been entered into between the parties, then anyone of the party has got a right to apply for termination of the tenancy under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 21.

7. The intention of the legislature with reference to Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act is that the tenancy-ship is to be regulated and no party shall take undue advantage of the lengthy procedures contemplated under the old Act or abuse the process of law. The untold agony were experienced by the tenant and the landlord, in view of the lengthy and complicated procedures, which were prevailing prior to the New Act. Tenants were allowed to stay for decades without any agreement and without paying rent and merely based on the litigious continuance. The parties have experienced that the litigations were going on for several years and in some cases more than 20, 25 years, the tenant-landlord disputes were going on in this Country.

8. The lengthy procedures and longevity of litigation in evicting the tenant or settling tenancy-ship between the landlord and the tenant, the parties have indulged in criminal activities and