Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Narayanaswamy - Petitioner
Versus
K. Rajeswari (deceased) – Respondent
C.R.P.No.2502 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.14330 of 2025
Decided on : 01-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan
For the Respondent: Mr.K.P.Ashok
The landlord is entitled to seek eviction under the new Act for failure to enter a written agreement, regardless of previous proceedings under the old Act, provided new grounds are asserted.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Section 21(2)(a) - Eviction proceedings initiated by landlords for non-entering into a written agreement upheld, despite previous withdrawal of application under earlier Act - Applicability of Section 47 (Repeal and Savings) in transition to new Act is clarified. (Paras 1, 3, 23)
(B) The obligation to enter into a written tenancy agreement within 575 days from the commencement of the new Act is emphasized, as failure serves as grounds for eviction under Section 21(2)(a). (Paras 4, 7, 18, 24)
Facts of the case:
The tenant challenged eviction orders from the Rent Court and the Rent Appellate Court based on allegations of non-entering into an agreement under the new Act, after a previous application was withdrawn under the old Act.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings regarding eviction for non-entering into a written agreement as per the new Act and ruled against the tenant's contention involving the applicability of the previous Act's stipulations.
Issues: Whether eviction initiated after the withdrawal of a previous application under old Act is maintainable under the new Act after the stipulated deadlines.
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord's right to seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) is recognized despite previous proceedings under old law, clarifying that failure to transition within mandated time does not inherently bar new claims initiated under legitimate grounds.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant challenging eviction order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning legal position on eviction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion of the object and requirements of the new act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. mechanisms related to tenancy agreements and rent under the new act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. eviction grounds and their implications based on agreement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. clarification on legislative intent concerning proceedings under old act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. previous judgments relating to landlord's rights under both acts. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. interpretation of tenant definition and legislative options. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. final conclusion regarding eviction under section 21(2)(a). (Para 24) |
ORDER :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below ordering eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TAMIL NADU REGULATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS ACT , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the TNRRRLT Act” or “the new Act”), the present revision has been filed by the tenant.
2.Brief background of the case is as follows :
2.1.The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents/landlords in respect of the subject property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- per month. The respondents/landlords originally filed an application in R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as “the old Act”) for eviction on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction. The said petition has been withdrawn by the landlords on 19.04.2022 and they filed an application in R.L.T.O.P.No.576 of 2022 on the file of the X Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under the new Act, seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into a written agreement and Section 21(2)(e) for demolition and reconstruction.
2.2.It is the contention of the tenant before the Rent Court that the landlord cannot invoke Section 21(2)(a) of the new TNRRRLT Act, since R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was originally pending under the old Act. The said R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was withdrawn by the landlords after expiry of the mandatory period of 575 days to enter into an agreement. It was further stated that, since the landlords could not establish their case under the ground of demolition and reconstruction, they have added Section 21(2)(a) as a ground for eviction under the new Act. Hence, the tenant opposed the application.
2.3.Though eviction was sought on two grounds, namely, for non-entering into an agreement and for demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Court, by order dated 27.02.2023, ordered eviction under Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into an agreement and dismissed the application qua Section 21(2)(e) for demolition and reconstruction.
2.4.The tenant filed an appeal before the XIX Additional City Civil Court, in R.L.T.A.No.134 of 2023. The Rent Appellate Court has also confirmed the order of the Rent Court ordering eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, for non-entering into an agreement.
2.5.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present revision has been filed by the tenant.
3.Though various grounds have been raised, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant confined his submissions with regard to the legal position, particularly with regard to Section 47 (Repeal and Savings clause) in the new Act. The learned counsel mainly would submit that, as per Section 47 of the TNRRRLT Act, any previous proceedings initiated under the old Act ought to have been withdrawn within a period of 270 days and an application under the new Act ought to have been filed within a period of 360 days from the commencement of the new Act. Whereas, R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was withdrawn only on 19.04.2022. According to the learned counsel, the time period of 270 days provided under Sub-Clause (2) of Section 47 expired as early as on 19.11.2019. Therefore, it is his contention that the landlords are
