The presence of a valid written tenancy agreement is essential to prevent eviction under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act; mere intent to create a new agreement does not suffice.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The landlords, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the Rent Tribunal, dismissing their application for recovery of possession under Section 21 (2)(a) and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act , 2017 (TN Act 42 of 2017), are the revision petitioners.

2.I have heard Mr.V.Chanakya, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.V.Chanakya, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/landlords would submit that the petitioners filed R.L.T.O.P.No.307 of 2021, for recovering possession of the tenanted premises from the respondent/tenant. The case on which the petitioners approached the Rent Court was that there was no subsisting tenancy agreement between the petitioners and the respondent and though the petitioners had requested the respondent to come forward to enter into a tenancy agreement in terms of the TNRRRLT Act, the petitioners came to know that the respondent had sub let the premises to third parties and hence, the petitioners were not desirable to enter into any tenancy agreement and in such circumstances, they had issued a termination notice on 08.10.2020, calling upon the respondent to vacate.

4.According to the petitioners, the said notice was not replied to by the respondent. The petitioners therefore invoked Section 21 (2)(a) of the Act and sought for recovery of possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the Rent Court had rightly found that in the absence of valid tenancy agreement, as required under Section 4 (2) of the Act, the petitioners were entitled to an order of repossession of the tenanted premises. He would however state that sympathizing with the respondent who pleaded readiness to enter into a fresh agreement and that it was only the petitioners, who are not ready, the Rent Tribunal, on an erroneous consideration of law, has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court. He would also rely on the decision of this Court in Habeeb Hardware, represented by its Partner, S.A.Farook Vs. M.D.Gajarajakumar , reported in 2025 (1) CTC 241 as well as Mr.Vijayraj Bhandari Vs. Mr.Suresh Kumar and others , in CRP.No.162 of 2023 dated 25.01.2023. He would therefore pray for the order of the Rent Court being restored.

5.Per contra, Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant would submit that the petitioners had not even come to Court with clean hands when the respondent was agreeable to the demand made by the petitioners to enter into a fresh tenancy agreement and therefore, it was not open to the petitioners to go back on the offer made by them, which was accepted by the respondent and contend that there was a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that if the landlords are allowed to misuse the provisions of Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act, then no tenant in the State of Tamil Nadu would be safe and would always run the risk of being thrown out from the tenanted premises, at the whims and fancies of landlords. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that this was not the object with which the Act was promulgated and as even the name of the legislation suggests the Act is brought about only to regulate rights of both landlords and the tenants and he wou