ORDER :

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned VI Additional City Civil Court (Rent Tribunal) at Chennai, dated 26.10.2022 in R.L.T.A.No.63 of 2022 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the X Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Authority) in R.L.T.O.P.No.790 of 2021.

The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted to set aside the order dated 26.10.2022 passed in R.L.T.A.No.63 of 2022 confirming the order dated 25.04.2022 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.790 of 2021.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondents instituted Eviction Proceedings in R.L.T.O.P.No.790 of 2021 under Section 21(2)(a) of The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The Rent Court adjudicated the issues elaborately and allowed the original petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017. The revision petitioner / tenant was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject premises to the respondent / landlord within a period of one (1) month.

3. The revision petitioner / tenant filed an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.63 of 2022 and the Rent Tribunal also considered the grounds raised between the parties and formed an opinion that the findings of the Rent Court is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the landlord would be able to establish the ground for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed. Thus, the revision petitioner is constrained move the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner mainly contended that the revision petitioner / tenant was ready and willing to enter into an agreement as per the existing grounds based on the existing terms and conditions and it is he, who the landlord declined to enter into an agreement and therefore, the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal has committed an error in ordering an eviction.

5. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Ramesh Salunkhe Vs. Pramila Jain dated 25.01.2022 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1996 of 2021 wherein, this Court made the following observations:-

“20. The answer to the question is clearly indicated in section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 requires the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement in writing i.e., tenancy agreement with regard to that tenancy. "That tenancy" means the tenancy created before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the respondent cannot unilaterally fix the monthly rent Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner as the tenancy agreement should only refer the terms that were existing prior to the commencement of this Act. In the case before hand, the rent was paid at Rs.1500/-per month before the commencement of TNRRRLT Act, and therefore, the unilateral demand made by the respondent to execute a tenancy agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- per month is contrary to the legal requirement under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. However, both the Courts below on misreading of the provisions, had found that the landlord is entitled to fix the rent unilaterally and the tenant has no option except to enter into a tenancy agreement, even it is unreasonable claim. That is not proper and not on the basis of correct reading of the legal provisions and the scope of the act. "The new Law aims to regulate the rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to be entered into between the owner of the premises and the tenant. It also aims to balance the rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the tenant and provide regulation of the rent as per the agreement.”

6. Relying on the above observations of this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that once the tenant is willing to continue the lease and ready to