Eviction proceedings must prove a valid landlord-tenant relationship; misapplication of statutory provisions can invalidate eviction orders.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

Heard, Mr.Suresh Sampaath, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent herein is admittedly the father of the petitioner.However, the respondent claiming himself to be the landlord and the petitioner/daughter to be a tenant under rental agreement dated 31.01.2009, approached the Rent Court, after coming into force of the TN RRRLT Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017 as amended by Act No.39 of 2018) alleging that the revision petitioner is a tenant and that the petitioner has not paid rents and further there is also a failure to enter into tenancy agreement in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Consequently, the respondent sought for recovery of possession on these two grounds.

3. Before the Rent Court, the petitioner filed a counter denying the claim of a rental agreement entered into between her and the respondent. The petitioner also took a plea that she has filed a suit for partition against the father and other siblings in OS.No.139 2015, claiming the properties including the demised property to be ancestral property. The said suit is admittedly pending in OS.No.139 of 2015 before the III Additional Judge, Poonamallee.

4. The Rent Court proceeded to hold that the petitioner is a tenant in view of the rental agreement entered into on 31.01.2009 coupled with the fact that the respondent’s father had filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to evidence payment of rents by the revision petitioner. The Rent Court, though found that there was no failure to enter into a tenancy agreement, dismissed the petition and ordered eviction only on the ground of default in payment of rents i.e., 21(2)(b) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal in RLTA.No.6 of 2025 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Rent Tribunal, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Rent Court and not only confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents, but also proceeded to order eviction on the ground that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement.

5. Mr.Suresh Sampaath, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner firstly contended that the petitioner never admitted the agreement dated 31.01.2009 marked as Ex.P1. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father i.e., the respondent had settled the property under Ex.R2 on 20^th April, 2015 by a registered settlement deed where the petitioner has been given a life interest. However, the said settlement deed was subsequently, cancelled within a period of two months on 11.06.2015 by the respondent unilaterally. The said deed was marked as Ex.R3.

6. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioner is challenging the registration of the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed before the Writ Court in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.12573 of 2025 and the same is pending. However, the learned counsel would fairly bring to my notice that insofar as these averments relating to the settlement deed’s unilateral cancellation and subsequent challenge before the Writ Court are concerned, no plea was taken in the counter statement filed before the Rent Court. At the same time, Mr.Suresh Sampaath, learned counsel however states that the Rent Court and Tribunal ought not to have gone into the issue of title to hold that the petitioner is a tenant and the respondent/father is the owner of the property and the petitioner has not proved the factum of the settlement deed and cancellation deed executed. He would also state that the agreement dated 31.01.20