Written tenancy agreements are mandatory under the Act; failure to execute justifies eviction.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. A challenge has been made to the order of the Rent Court and Appellate Court in ordering eviction.

Brief background of the case:

2. The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondents and a monthly rent of Rs.960/- had been fixed in the year 2007. According to the petitioner, after introduction of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017'), the respondents did not come forward for executing an agreement as mandated under law. As there is no written agreement entered into between the parties, eviction was sought under Sections 21 (2)(a) and 23 of the Act, 2017. The Rent Court ordered for eviction of the revision petitioner, against which, she had filed an appeal, wherein the order of the Rent Court has been upheld and challenging the same, the instant revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as far as the old tenancy is concerned, registration of document is not mandatory and it is the duty of both landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement in respect of the tenancy already existed. He further submitted that though the revision petitioner was ready to execute the agreement, it was the landlords, who did not agree for execution, as they were interested only in enhancement of the rent. In that circumstances, the agreement could not be executed and according to him, the Courts below did not consider Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2017 in its proper perspective.

4. I have perused the material documents available on record.

5. Admittedly, there was no tenancy agreement between the parties after the Act, 2017, which came into force with effect from 22.02.2019. The main object of the Act, 2017 is to regulate the rent as per the terms agreed between the parties. Therefore, an agreement is mandatory to claim rights under this Act and in order to avail the benefit under the Act, Section 4 directs the parties to enter into an agreement compulsorily, that too even for existing tenancy. Time limit is also set out within which agreement should be entered into between the parties. Since the Act itself aims to regulate the rent on the basis of the terms of the contract, the parties have to obligatorily enter into a contract, failing which, it may be one of the grounds for seeking eviction under Section 21 (2)(a) of the Act, 2017 in terms of proviso to Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2017, which contemplates that irrespective of the failure on the part of either landlord or tenant in entering into an agreement, eviction can be sought on this sole ground.

6. It is relevant to note that the tenant must have shown some evidence to the extent that she was ready to enter into an agreement with a reasonable rent as per the market value and that it was the respondents, who refused to enter into an agreement, in the absence of which, it cannot be said that the order of eviction is bad in the eye of law. Moreover, the revision petitioner / tenant had not taken any such steps to avail the benefit of the Act, 2017. In this regard, this Court in the case of Habeeb Hardware and another vs. M.D.Gajarajakumar made in CRP.Nos.4509 and 4511 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 has held as follows:

“7. As far as the contention that the tenant is always ready and willing to execute the agreement, no documents were exhibited by the tenants. Be that as it may, the very New Act came into force on 22.02.2019. The main object of the Act is to regulate the rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. It also aims at balancing the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants and pro