IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of adherence to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 for the validity of rental agreements and the significance of registration with the rent authority.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2022 on the file of Rent Court -cum-District Munsif at Poonamallee.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed to strike off R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2022 on the file of Rent Court -cum-District Munsif at Poonamallee.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:

(i). The first respondent is landlord and the second respondent is tenant. The first respondent entered into a Rental Agreement with the second respondent in respect of the petition mentioned property along with goods attached to the property on 01.08.2020. The tenure of rental agreement is 11 months. It expires on 30.07.2021. The monthly rent is fixed at Rs.21,000/- and Maintenance charge is at Rs.1000/- . Further, since the second respondent failed to pay the rent and maintenance Charges from the month of March and April, 2021, the first respondent requested the second respondent to pay the rent and maintenance by his letter dated 12.05.2021. On receipt of the same, the second respondent did not pay any amount. Further, due to non payment of rent for the month of May 2021, the first respondent sent a letter dated 12.06.2021 terminating the tenancy and requested the second respondent to pay the rent and maintenance amount of Rs.66,000/- and to hand over the vacant possession of the petition premises.

(ii). As per terms and conditions, the second respondent should obtain prior confirmation and no objection from the first respondent before sub renting or subleasing the petition premises to any third party. The second respondent, without getting prior confirmation and no objection from the first respondent, sub-leased the petition premises to the petitioner (sub lessee) after getting an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards sub lease in respect of the petition mentioned property. The receipt of such amount by the second respondent is highly illegal and unreasonable.

(iii). The rental agreement between the first and second respondent lapsed on 30.07.2021. The petitioner and the second respondent have got no right to occupy the petition mentioned property in the absence of written rental agreement. In respect of the same, the first respondent issued legal notice dated 18.11.2021 to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property, which was returned as 'left' and 'unclaimed' and the petitioner (sub lessee) issued a reply notice 22.11.2021, with false allegation on the first respondent, without any privity of contract. Hence, the first respondent filed a petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2022 against the petitioner as well as the second respondent for eviction and other reliefs. Questioning the maintainability of the said R.L.T.O.P., the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2022 has been taken on file without jurisdiction as there is no registered tenancy agreement. The unregistered rental agreement entered into between the first and second respondent cannot be given any effect in view of Section 4A of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (herein after referred as “Act 2017”). Further, the learned counsel contended that admittedly the rental agreement is dated 01.08.2020 is subsequent to the enforcement of the Act 2017. Therefore, such rental agreement shall not come within the purview of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act and thus, pleaded to strike off R.L.T.O.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif at Poonamallee.

4. To support his argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S.Muruganandam & others Vs. J.Joseph & Others - (CDJ 2022 MHC 674).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the original petition is very well maintainable. The applicant/first