The grace period for tenancy agreements under the Tamil Nadu Act does not apply if the landlord's offer is refused by the tenant, and the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 227 despite statutory bars.

ORDER :

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 passed in R.L.T.A.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court at Chennai in reversing the fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2021 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.214 of 2019 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed in R.L.T.A.No.25 of 2021 dated 21.09.2022 in reversing the order and decreetal order of the XI Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.214 of 2019 dated 10.08.2021.

2. The relationship between the landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The tenant, who is the respondent, had entered into a tenancy agreement on 17.06.1970 for a period of five years paying a monthly rent of Rs.700/-. On 01.08.2019, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to enter into a fresh agreement in terms of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. A reply was sent by the tenant on 14.08.2019 stating that he is willing to enter into an agreement but on the same terms as the agreement dated 17.06.1970. In other words, the tenant wanted to continue in possession of the property paying a sum of Rs.700/- as a rent.

3. This is not being agreeable to the landlord and since no agreement had been entered into in terms of Section 21(2)(a) and Section 4 of the Act, R.L.T.O.P.No.214 of 2019 was presented for eviction.

4. Notice was issued to the tenant and a counter was received from him. The stand in the counter was more or less identical as stated in the reply, dated 14.08.2019. It was stated that there is no need to enter into a fresh agreement and if the landlord so requires, a fresh tenancy can be entered into on the same terms as per the old agreement.

5. Before the Rent Court, the landlord examined one S.L.Mohan as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The respondent neither entered appearance nor tendered any documents.

6. On the basis of the fact that no agreement had been entered into as required under Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the Rent Court ordered eviction.

7. As against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, who is the appellate authority.

8. The appeal was received as R.L.T.A.No.25 of 2021. The learned Judge referring to the principles laid down in Ramesh Salunkhe vs. Pramila Jain in CRP.(NPD)No.1996 of 2021, dated 25.01.2022 held that as the petition had been filed before the expiry of 575 days, the petition is pre-mature and therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the reversing judgment, the present revision has been presented before this Court.

9. Mr.Sivakumar, appearing on behalf of the landlord, would submit that the amendment which gave a window of 575 days to an existing tenant to enter into an agreement with the landlord came into force only on 15.02.2020. He would draw my attention to Act 22 of 2019, whereby, for the period from 26.07.2019 to 15.02.2020, the cooling of period was only 210 days. In other words, 575 days came into effect only on 15.03.2020 and the same cannot be given a retrospective effect.

10. My brother, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Sounthar interpreted this provision in C.R.P.No.3031 of 2022, dated 11.10.2022 has held as follows :

A reading of Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, to makes it clear that the grace period of 575 days has to be calculated from the date of commencement of the Act and not from the day on which the grace period was enhanced from 210 days to 575 days by amending the Act"

11. Mr.T.Viswanatha Rao, appearing on behalf of the respondent, would submit that the revision itself is not maintainable since there is a bar under Section 38(5)(b) of Tamil Nadu Regulat