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.

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, dated 15.06.2024.

2. The petitioner is the tenant. He took out an application under Section 37(1)(a) of the TAMIL NADU REGULATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS ACT , 2017 to summon the landlords before the Court and to subject himself to cross-examination. The said petition was dismissed and hence, this revision.

3. There is no dispute over the relationship between the parties. The civil revision petitioner admits to the tenancy between the landlords and himself. This satisfies the jurisdictional fact of existence of the jural relationship between a landlord and a tenant. It is the case of the landlords that no agreement was entered into between them and the tenant in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Hence, he invoked Section 21(2)(a) of the said legislation seeking eviction. A counter-affidavit was filed by the tenant and the matter is listed for evidence.

4. The tenant, at that stage, took out an application stating that the landlords falsely averred that they made attempts to enter into an agreement with him and it was he, who refused to enter into the agreement. The tenant wanted to disprove the statement and therefore, he filed the petition to summon the landlords. This petition was received in M.P.No.3 of 2024 and after receipt of a counter-affidavit, the petition was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

5. Mr.G.Murugendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Section 4(2) read with Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, it is the duty of the landlords to show that they made attempts to enter into an agreement and it was the tenant who refused to do the same. He would plead that without substantiating this plea, a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is not maintainable. He would submit that the words "failed to enter into an agreement" show that the landlords should have made some attempts to enter into an agreement and the process of entering into the agreement should have failed on account of the fact that the tenant did not do so. Though this aspect was pleaded by the landlords, since the tenant wants to disprove it, he would plead that he is entitled for admission and an interim order in the revision.

6. I have considered the arguments of Mr.G.Murugendran.

7. The position of law was settled by the judgment of this Court in S.Muruganandam Vs. J.Joseph , 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 375 , by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian, wherein, it is held that even if the mistake lies on the part of the landlord in not entering into an agreement, all that the Rent Controller would have to see, while disposing of the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, is the existence of the agreement. Though the argument of Mr.G.Murugendran is very inviting, if I were to accept that plea, I would be literally rewriting Section 21(2)(a) of the Act from the words "failed to enter into an agreement" to "failed to enter into an agreement on account of the mistake of the tenant". The power to amend the statute is not available with this Court. The section has to be read as it is, unless and until, it is going to result in absurdity.

8. The purpose of bringing the TAMIL NADU REGULATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS ACT , 2017 was to provide a summary procedure for eviction of tenant. If the interpretation of Mr.G.Murugendran is to be accepted by me, I would be defeating the purpose of the new Rent Control Act and I would be pushing the parties to the same protracted trial