IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Habeeb Hardware Represented by its Partner SA Farook - Petitioner
Versus
M.D.Gajarajakumar – Respondent
CRP.Nos.4509 & 4511 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.25163 & 25168 of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024
ORDER :
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2024 made in RLTA.Nos.48 and 49 of 2024 by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by confirming the order and decree dated 06.01.204 passing in RLTOP.Nos.480 & 479 of 2023 by the learned XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority confirming the order of eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the present revisions have been filed.
2. Since the petitioners are the tenants under the respondent/landlord and the impugned orders have been passed against the revision petitioners, these revisions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Brief background of filing these revisions are as follows:
3.a. The landlord/respondent herein had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 ("New Act" hereinafter) for repossession on the ground that the tenant has not come forward to execute the agreement as mandated under Section 4 of the New Act, i.e., within a period of 575 days.
3.b. It is the case of the landlord that the revision petitioners are the tenants under the landlord's shop for the last 30 years on a monthly rent of Rs.9000/-. Despite several requests to enter the agreement in respect of the petition premises, tenant has not come forward to execute the agreement. That apart, the respondents have also decided to demolish and reconstruct the entire building since the same is an old building aged more than 50 years. Hence, filed the eviction petition. The tenants/revision petitioner took a stand before the authorities below that that they were always ready and wiling to execute the tenancy agreement, whereas, the landlord has not come forward to enter into the agreement. After the demise of Mr.M.A.Ethirajulu Naidu, the landlord/respondent claiming to be Kartha of a joint family has not taken any steps to enter into a rental agreement and further, the demolition plea is also not supported. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction of the petitioners/tenants under 21(2)(a) of the New Act and the appellate Court had confirmed the same. Challenging the eviction, the present revisions have been filed.
4. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that when the revision petitioners have taken a plea that they were ready and willing to execute the agreement and when the landlord has failed to execute the agreement, in such case, the tenants cannot be vacated automatically. This aspect has not been considered by the both the Courts below. He further submitted that a learned Single Judge in the case of M/s.Topi Kapi vs. S.Sarath Babu vide order dated 06.04.2023 made in CRP.No.445 of 2023 has held that when the tenant has not refused to execute a written agreement and he has always exhibited readiness and willingness to execute the agreement, there cannot be eviction under Section 21 of the New Act.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that irrespective of the default on either side, as long as there is no agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant as mandated under the New Act, eviction is automatic. It has held been by this Court in the case of S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph reported in 2022 (2) CTC 291 (Mad).
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. As far as the contention that the tenant is always ready and willing to execute the agreement, no documents were exhibited by the tenants. Be that as it may, the very New Act came into force on 22.02.2019. The main object of the Act is to regulate the rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant
AI
The absence of a written tenancy agreement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 justifies eviction, regardless of the tenant's claims of r....
Written tenancy agreements are mandatory under the Act; failure to execute justifies eviction.
The requirement of a written tenancy agreement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is mandatory for avoid automatic eviction rights for l....
The absence of a written tenancy agreement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 justifies eviction, and dilatory tactics by the Tenant are....
Parties must execute a written agreement under the Act to regulate rent; failure to do so allows for eviction, regardless of prior tenancy arrangements.
The presence of a valid written tenancy agreement is essential to prevent eviction under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act; mere intent to create a....
Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 allows landlords to seek eviction regardless of their fault in not entering a tenancy agreement, and cross-examination rights are discretionary.
The interpretation of Section 21(2)(a) mandates that courts focus only on the existence of a tenancy agreement, not the reasons for its failure, to uphold the summary eviction process under the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.