Landlords in a co-ownership must act jointly in eviction proceedings; unilateral splitting of tenancy is impermissible under law.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant, who has suffered concurrently before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.S.Thankira, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent initiated proceedings under the new rent legislation, namely the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, seeking to evict the petitioner on the ground that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement, invoking Section 21(2)(a) of the Act and also on the ground that there has been a default in payment of rents, invoking Section 21(2)(b) of the Act. The Rent Court, as well the Rent Tribunal have concurrently ordered eviction and challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would first and foremost contend that the petitioner is only one of the co-owners of the tenanted property and the petitioner, by filing the application before the Rent Court, has attempted to split the tenancy. He would submit that the landlord cannot split the tenancy and seek eviction of a portion of the tenanted premises. He would invite my attention to the rental agreement that has been entered into between the parties and refer to the various provisions, to drive home the point that there has been a single agreement in respect of a consolidated promises, that has been leased to the petitioner, on consolidated payment of rent of Rs.10,000/-. He would further state that even in the suit filed by the petitioner, seeking the relief of a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment, the respondent has filed a written statement, clearly admitting to the fact that the premises that has been let out is the factory shed that has been constructed as a single unit/building, on the lands individually purchased by the respondent and the son of the petitioner/tenant.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel also relies on the decision of this Court in A. Alagiyanathan Vs. M. Swaminatha Pillai , 1980 (93) LW 580 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jeewanlal Vs. Anant , 1967 SCC Online MP 136. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and the eviction order being set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr.E.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not taken the plea that the tenancy cannot be split up, before the Rent Court. He would invite my attention to the fact that the petitioner has admitted to be paying rents separately and equally to the respondent and the petitioner's son, who is the other owner. He would further state that the properties were acquired by the petitioner's son and the respondent by way of two separate sale deeds with specific boundaries, the northern portion belonging to the respondent and southern portion belonging to the petitioner's son himself. He would also state that though the petitioner claims to have an agreement to purchase the property, he has not been able to substantiate the same and there is no error committed by the Rent Court or the Rent Tribunal in ordering eviction as prayed for. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that as a co-owner, the petitioner was entitled to