ORDER :

[Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 16.09.2022 passed in R.L.T.A.No.24 of 2021 passed by VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai which confirms the order dated 05.07.2021 R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2019 passed by XIV Small Causes Court.]

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 16.09.2022 in R.L.T.ANo.24 of 2021 confirming the order dated 05.07.2021 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2019.

2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent/landlord entered into a lease agreement on 24.03.2017 with M/s.Arul Groups Property Management and Arrangement Services Company. There is a clause in the agreement that the sub-tenancy by the company will not be binding on the landlord/respondent. In December 2018 one Mr.B.Arivunambi, Director of the said M/s.Arul Groups Property Management and Arrangement Services Company was arrested for cheating several persons. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein approached the landlord for entering into a fresh tenancy agreement and accordingly, an agreement for 11 months was agreed from 01.01.2019 for the rent at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month without any fixed deposit. Subsequently, the agreement was not renewed and became expired. The respondent filed R.L.T.O.P.No.96 of 2019 seeking eviction on the ground that there is no agreement and the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rent.

3. The revision petitioner admitted the fact that he had been inducted as a lessee in the premises by the landlord's agent Mr.B.Arivunambi and he had remitted a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- as lease amount, which would be payable on the date of vacating the premises. The lease deed was extended by Mr.B.Arivunambi for 3 years from 01.02.2017. The revision petitioner contended that he was not aware of the agreement between the landlord and Mr.B.Arivunambi. However, subsequently, the revision petitioner/tenant entered into an agreement with the respondent/landlord for monthly rent of Rs.18,000/-.

4. Admittedly, the lease agreement expired and not renewed between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent/landlord has not paid the lease amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to the petitioner/tenant, which was received by his agent Mr.B.Arivunambi and therefore, the petitioner would not able to take a decision for vacating the premises. Thus, the petitioner is not liable to vacate, as the respondent/landlord not complied with his obligations to refund the deposits.

5. The Rent Court framed three issues, which reads as under:

(1) Whether there exists jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent or not?

(2) Whether this petition is to be allowed on the ground of failure to enter into agreement or not?

(3) Whether this petition is to be allowed on the ground of willful default or not?

6. The Rent court with reference to the jural relationship made a finding that the revision petitioner/tenant had paid rent from the month of January 2019 to the respondent/landlord, which was proved through Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Thus, an oral agreement between the petitioner and the respondent existed and the tenancy was also admitted by the revision petitioner in his counter. Thus, the jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as tenant and landlord was established.

7. Regarding the failure on the part of the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement under Section 4(2) of the New Act, the Rent Court found that the landlord and tenant failed to enter into a tenancy agreement. While so, either the landlord or the tenant can approach the Rent Court for eviction/termination of tenancy on the sole ground under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants (TNRRRLT) Act, 2017.

8. In the present case, there is no tenancy agreement, which was registe