The court affirmed that tenants cannot deny a landlord's rights after accepting rents, emphasizing the importance of entering a tenancy agreement under the TNRRRLT Act.

ORDER :

The tenants were directed to be vacated in pursuance of proceedings initiated by the respondent as landlord, before the Rent Court and having unsuccessfully challenged the eviction orders before the Rent Tribunal, are the revision petitioners.

2.I have heard Mr.E.Ganesh, learned counsel for Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant in both the petitions and Mr.K.Kulandaivelu, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord in the current revision petition .

3.Brief facts, leading to the present revision petitions, are as follows:

The respondent/landlord filed RLTOP.Nos.403 and 404 of 2020 seeking recovery of possession from the revision petitioners herein on the ground that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement as mandated under Section 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (herein after called as TNRRRLT Act, 2017). Eviction was sought under Section 21 (2)(a) of the Act. The case with which the respondent came to Rent Court was that he is the landlord of the petition premises, which is under occupation of the revision petitioners and despite the new legislation, namely the TNRRRLT Act coming into force, there has been a failure to enter into an agreement as mandated under provisions of the TNRRRLT Act and therefore, the petitioner has a right to seek recovery of possession under Section 21 (2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act.

4.The Petitioners resisted the said eviction petition contending that the property was owned originally, by one, Jayalakshmi Ammal who had directed various persons to collect rent and after her demise, Gnanasoundari Ammal was collecting rents and she also used to direct her agents to collect the rents. However, the Petitioners admit that the rents are being deposited into the accounts of the Respondent herein. The Petitioners have also denied that they had not come forward to enter into any agreement as required under the new enactment and that they had requested 3 months time to vacate the tenanted premises. It was also contended by the Petitioners that the notice issued by the Respondent on 27.07.2020, calling upon the Petitioners to vacate was not in compliance with Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act and therefore, the RLTOP filed by the Respondent was not maintainable.

5.It was also contended by the Petitioners that the Respondent has not established title to the property and the registered Will dated 29.08.2003 executed by Gnanasoundari Ammal has not been probated and no rights can flow from such unprobated Will and consequently, the Respondent is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition. It is also contended by the Petitioners that even the said Gnanasoundari Ammal was only a life estate holder and since serious issues regarding title are raised, the Rent Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same and the petitioner sought for dismissal of eviction petitions.

6.The Respondent filed a rejoinder, stating that the Petitioners have been continuously paying rent only to the Respondent for several years and they have denied the statement of the Petitioners that the Respondent’s grandmother and mother used to send different persons to collect rent as being false. It is also stated by the Respondent that the rents were originally paid to the Respondent’s grandmother and thereafter to the mother of the Respondent and thereafter to the Respondent. The Respondent has stated that the notice sent by the Respondent on 27.07.2020 was refused to be received by the Petitioners. The Respondent has also contended that being the son of Gnanasoundari Ammal, he admittedly falls within the defini