An unmarked and insufficiently stamped tenancy agreement is inadmissible, failing to create a valid lease under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act.

ORDER :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. Heard.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.A. No. 105 of 2024 dated 09.04.2025, confirming the judgment and decree of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.O.P. No. 345 of 2019 dated 30.04.2024.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the original petition.

4. The petitioner/landlady sought repossession of the tenanted premises under Section 4 (2) read with Section 21 (2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as “TNRRLT Act”). The jural relationship of landlady and tenants is admitted. It is also admitted that the tenancy commenced prior to the enactment of the present TNRRLT Act.

5. The petitioner/landlady contended that no tenancy agreement was entered into after commencement of the Act, and therefore the respondents are liable to be evicted. The respondents/tenants, however, asserted that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and their father, late Mukalchand Bothra, on 08.04.2019 for ten years, for which Rs. 6 crores was paid, and that the agreement was registered with the Rent Authority under Section 4 of the TNRRLT Act.

6. The petitioner/landlady firmly denies the existence of any valid tenancy agreement and asserts that the alleged lease dated 08.04.2019 is a forged document created as an afterthought to obstruct eviction proceedings. Her central contention is that the lease is neither properly stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as 'Stamp Act') nor registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'Registration Act'), and is therefore inadmissible in evidence. She disputes the tenants' reliance on the TNRRLT Act 2017 registration, alleging that the purported Certificate of Registration is fake. She supports this claim with a formal verification report from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) dated 26.10.2023, categorically stating that no application or registration bearing T.R. No. TN-0207006010805/2020 pertains to the impugned agreement is found in the tenancy database.

7.The petitioner/landlady further asserts that this TNHB confirmation-sourced through an inquiry initiated by the Commissioner of Police, Vepery-proves that the QR code and certificate number produced by the tenant are fictitious and not verifiable in any official records. She also notes that the alleged registration date 17.02.2020 post- dates her eviction notice dated 26.10.2019, casting serious doubt on the authenticity and timing of the document. According to her, this indicates a deliberate countermeasure undertaken by the tenants after litigation had already commenced.

8. The petitioner/landlady also relies on forensic evidence from the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, which upon examining the lease concluded that her signature had been forged. She cited Satish Chand Makhan and Others v. Govardhan Das Byas and others [(1984) 1 SCC 369], contending that an unregistered lease deed is inadmissible in evidence and cannot create a valid lease for a renewed term for want of registration as required under Section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act.

9.For the respondents/tenants, the first revision petitioner/first respondent appearing in person contended that the landlady referred to the date of the agreement in her rejoinder though it had not been mentioned in the tenants' earlier reply, thereby showing that she knew of the agreement and was feigning ignorance. He argued that he was denied an opportunity to defend his case, and that the appellate cou