Tenant cannot claim automatic adjustment of advance rent without a specific clause in the rental agreement; default in rent payment is sufficient ground for eviction.

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 made in RLTA No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court cum Rent Tribunal, Theni, reversing the fair and executable order dated 27.03.2024 made in RLTOP No.1 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Court, Bodinayakkanur.

2.The petitioner is the tenant and the first respondent is the landlord. The first respondent/landlord has filed RLTOP.No.1 of 2021 before the District Munsif cum Rent Court, Bodinayakkanur, seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for the act of sub-letting. The Court below, by order dated 27.03.2024, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the first respondent/landlord preferred RLTA.No.5 of 2024 before the Principal District Court, Theni/Rent Tribunal and the lower appellate Court, by judgment dated 28.07.2025, allowed the appeal, directing the petitioner/tenant as well as the second respondent herein/sub-tenant to vacate the premises. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Revision would submit that the petitioner had entered into a registered lease agreement by virtue of Doc.No.5953 of 2015, dated 11.12.2015, with the first respondent, agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.9,500/- towards rent and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards advance. When the lease period, as per agreement, dated 11.12.2015, is 15 years, without completion of the period specified, the first respondent cannot evict the petitioner from the premises.

4.He would further submit that the eviction petition was filed on the ground of wilful default and the act of sub-letting. The petitioner has duly paid the rent till August, 2021 and after receipt of the legal notice, when the petitioner approached the first respondent to pay the rental dues, he has refused to receive the same. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there cannot be any wilful default on his part as held by the lower appellate Court. Even though an allegation has been made that the petitioner inducted the second respondent herein as a sub tenant, the act of sub-letting the premises has not been proved through documents and only for two months, the second respondent was residing along with the petitioner.

5.He would further submit that there was an advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the first respondent/landlord, which was admitted by the first respondent in the plaint itself. As per Rent Control proceedings, the landlord may receive an amount not exceeding one month rent as advance. Therefore, the first respondent/landlord is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.9,500/- towards advance from the petitioner, however, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was received towards advance. Therefore, the excess amount in the advance can be equated with the rental dues payable to the first respondent and as such, there cannot be any wilful default in payment of rent. Therefore, he called upon this Court to set aside the order impugned herein and to grant the relief as prayed for.

6.It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition on the legal premise under Section 4(2) r/w 21(2)(b) of the TAMIL NADU REGULATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS ACT (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience), which mandates tha