The court upheld the landlord's right to double rent compensation under Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act despite the absence of a registered lease agreement.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.4284 & 3787 of 2023 will be referred to as “landlady” and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023 will be referred to as “tenant”.

2.Challenging the order passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.A.No.136 of 2022, dated 24.04.2023, directing the tenant to pay the monthly rent from August, 2020, till he hands over possession of the subject premises, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.4284 of 2023 contending that she is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent as per Section 23 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”).

3.Challenging the same order directing the tenant to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.4,13,000/- till he hands over possession, even after termination of tenancy by the tenant himself, the tenant has filed C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023.

4.Challenging the order passed by the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.4058 of 2022, dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 16 r/w. Order VII Rule 11 CPC to strike off and reject the entire plaint in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 filed by the tenant for recovery of security cum advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/-, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.3787 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as follows :

5.1.The landlady let out the subject premises to the tenant as per the lease deed dated 18.01.2019. The lease commenced from 15.02.2019. The monthly rent originally agreed between the parties was Rs.2,70,000/- together with GST at 18% p.a. An advance of Rs.31,60,000/- has been paid by the tenant. The agreement also stipulates a lock-in period of 3 years.

5.2.The grievance of the landlady is that, though the tenant paid the monthly rents regularly for over a year, later, he has defaulted in payment of rent. The last rent was paid in the month of May, 2020 at the rate of Rs.4,13,000/-. It is her contention that, though, initially, rent was fixed at Rs.2,70,000/-, it was thereafter increased to Rs.4,13,000/-. It is also her contention that, apart from the default, the tenant also misused the premises and did not maintain the premises properly.

5.3.When the matter stood thus, on 07.07.2020, the tenant issued a notice terminating the tenancy. The said termination notice was replied by the landlady on 09.07.2020. Thereafter, the tenant has demanded refund of advance amount by a legal notice in the first week of August, 2020. It was also replied by the landlady on 05.08.2020.

6.According to the landlady, despite lease has been terminated way back in August, 2020, by the tenant himself, the tenant has not vacated and handed over the possession of the premises and therefore, the tenant is liable to pay Rs.20,65,000/- towards arrears of rent. Besides, it is her contention that, as the agreement is not a registered one, it cannot be termed as a valid agreement under Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act. Therefore, the landlady filed R.L.T.O.P.No.510 of 2020 before the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction under Sections 21 (2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d) of TNRRRLT Act and also sought compensation of double the monthly rent, as the tenant has not vacated and handed over possession of the property to the landlady.

7.The tenant contested the eviction petition before the Rent Controller. Admitting the jural relationship between the parties, it is the