ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Judgement and Decree dated 25.10.2021 of the Rent Court/XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.380 of 2020 as confirmed by the Judgement and Decree dated 01.09.2022 of the IV Additional City Civil Judge (Appellate Court) Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.46 of 2021.

The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2022 passed in R.L.T.A.No.46 of 2021 by the Rent Appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Rent Court in R.L.T.O.P.No.380 of 2020.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents/landlord initiated proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'TNRRRLT/New Act']. The respondents / landlord filed R.L.T.O.P.No.380 of 2020 before the Rent Court to evict the revision petitioner under Section 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(b) of the TNRRRLT Act. The Rent Court adjudicated the issues by following the summary proceedings as contemplated under the New Act and allowed the R.L.T.O.P.No.380 of 2020 and ordered for eviction. The revision petitioner preferred R.L.T.A.No.46 of 2021 and the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.380 of 2020. Thus, the revision petitioner is constrained to move the present civil revision petition.

3. The application was allowed by the Rent Court under Section 4(2) and 21(2)(a) of the New Act and in respect of other grounds raised by the respondent under Section 21(2)(b) of the New Act was dismissed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner mainly contended that the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act is not maintainable, which was not considered by the Rent Court and the Appellate Court. It is the case of 'no evidence' and without even examining the witnesses and without marking any document in support of the case pleaded by the respondents / landlord, both the Rent Court and Appellate Court passed an order of eviction, which are in violation of the provisions of the New Act.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner contended that landlord had come forward to enter into a new rental agreement as per the provisions of the New Act and therefore, Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act is not at all applicable to the case of the revision petitioner. Though the ground was raised in the reply statement by the revision petitioner, the Rent Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the ground raised by the revision petitioner.

6. It is contended that the revision petitioner has spent huge amount for renovation and towards miscellaneous expenditures. The revision petitioner has obtained building plan and therefore, the Rent Court and the Appellate Court ought to have considered the mitigating factors presented by the revision petitioner before the Courts. It was pleaded before the Rent Court that the revision petitioner had spent about Rs.45 Lakhs and other expenses are also met out. The facts are stated in the reply notice dated 31.07.2018 and those factors were not considered by the Rent Court and the Appellate Court. The subject premises is a commercial building and let out to the revision petitioner without any basic amenities and the petitioner invested huge amount for development of the commercial premises.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner relied on Section 5(3) of the New Act and contended that the tenancy is determined and not mutually renewed by the parties. Admittedly the tenancy expired on 21.02.2019 and thus, the Statutory tenancy shall be considered on a monthly basis for a maximum period of six months. Thus, the landlord, in such circumstances, can approach the Court only after the expiry of six months period and could not inv