Tenancy agreements must be registered under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act to uphold validity in eviction proceedings, irrespective of claims to property ownership by tenants.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenge has been made to the concurrent findings of the rent appellate authority and rent controller ordering eviction.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the revision is as follows:

2.a. Application has been filed by the respondents/landlord for eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner on the ground that agreement of tenancy has not been registered after the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 ("TNRRRLT Act" hereinafter) came into force. Therefore, invoking Section 21(2)(a), the application was filed before the Rent Controller.

2.b. It was the case of the respondents/landlord that the revision petitioner was inducted as the tenant during the year 2000 for a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- and and had paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- as security deposit and further additional security deposit of Rs.2500/- have been paid, there was no written contract between the parties. The revision petitioner paid monthly rent till July 2012. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1619 of 2012 before the II Assistant City Civil Court not to dispossess the revision petitioner from the demised premises. As the rents have not been paid, he has issued a legal notice demanding payment of Rs.1,25,400/- as rent and to vacate and handover vacant possession of the demised premises. Hence, sought eviction.

2.c. It was the contention of the revision petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant in the scheduled property from the year 1976 onwards and one Kuppusamy, who is the husband of the 2^nd respondent. The said Kuppusamy had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,82,000/- and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the revision petitioner in the year 2001 that the amount has to be paid by the first respondent's husband. The said Kuppusamy died in the year 2001. However, in the year 2015, the respondent broke upon the house and committed theft, in this regard, a case is also filed.

2.d. The Rent Controller has allowed the application on the ground that tenancy has not been registered as per the TNRRRLT Act. The appellate authority also confirmed that order and before the appellate authority, an additional ground has been raised by the revision petitioner that land on which the superstructure stands belong to the HR&CE Department. Therefore, according to them, eviction is not maintainable as per Section 3 of the TNRRRLT Act. However, the first appellate authority negatived that plea on the ground that such ground has been raised only in appeal and ordered eviction. Challenging the order, the present revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that Section 3 (c) of the TNRRRLT Act clearly bars the rent Controller to entertain the petition in respect of the property owned by religious or charitable institutions as may be specified by the Government, by notification. Admittedly, the land in which superstructure stands belong to the HR & CE Department, it has been admitted by the so-called landlord in the counter before the appellate authority. Further, as per Section 2(f) of the TNRRRLT Act, “premises” means any building or part of a building including grounds. Hence, seeks to allow this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Admittedly, induction of the revision petitioner as a tenant in the building is not disputed. The counter filed by the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller indicate that he was inducted as a tenant in the petition premises in the year 1976 on agreed rents. The only stand taken by the revisi