ORDER :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.11.2022 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2022 and consequently reject the R.L.T.O.P.No.743 of 2021 on the file of XII Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.11.2022 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.743 of 2021.

2. The respondent/landlord filed R.L.T.O.P.No.743 of 2021 for eviction. The revision petitioner/tenant, during the pendency of the R.L.T.O.P, filed M.P.No.2 of 2022 under Section 36 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (T.N. Act 42 of 2017) [hereinafter referred to as 'TNRRRLT Act'] to stay all further proceedings in R.L.T.O.P.No.743 of 2021. The Rent Court adjudicated the issues and dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The revision petitioner states that he was ready and willing to execute the tenancy agreement and register the same as per the new Act. However, the respondent had incorporated exorbitant monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- contrary to the existing monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and further, denied to incorporate the receipt of the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as pagadi. Thus, the tenancy agreement could not be entered into between the parties and on the ground of no agreement, the respondent filed an application to evict the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed the Miscellaneous Petition to stay R.L.T.O.P. proceedings mainly on the ground that the respondent / landlord refused to enter into an agreement and incorporated exorbitant monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- contrary to the monthly rent. Under those circumstances, the agreement was not entered into between the parties, on account of the act of the respondent/landlord.

4. The respondent/landlord objected the said contention by stating that the tenancyship was terminated and the revision petitioner/tenant has not filed any document to support his contentions. In the absence of any documents or agreement for tenancyship, the respondent/landlord states the he is entitled to evict the petitioner/tenant under the provisions of the TNRRRLT Act. Thus, the Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits.

5. The Rent Court had considered the grounds raised between the parties. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondent / landlord refused to enter into a tenancy agreement with the petitioner, though he was ready to execute the tenancy agreement and register the same as per the new Act. Further, the respondent/landlord unilaterally increased the monthly rent exorbitantly and no termination notice was issued.

6. The Rent Court found that the revision petitioner/tenant has clearly admitted through his letter dated 26.07.2021 that he refused to enter into a tenancy agreement. The termination notice dated 06.09.2021 had been issued after refusal of the petitioner by way of a written communication to enter into a written tenancy agreement. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent/landlord cannot force him to enter into a written agreement for exorbitant monthly rent.

7. The Rent Court considered the issues and found that not entering into a written tenancy agreement or tenant expressing his willingness that he is ready to enter into a written tenancy agreement are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the R.L.T.O.P.

8. In this regard, the Rent Court relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Narayanamoorthy Vs. Rizwana made in C.R.P.No.168 of 2021 dated 14.07.2022. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed by the Rent Court.

9. Considering the arguments, primarily, Section 36(1) of the T.N. Act 42 of 2017 stipulates that the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the