JUDGMENT

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Rent Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking dismissal of the main RLTOP filed by the respondent/landlord seeking repossession of the demised premises under Section 21(2) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as TNRRRLT Act).

2. The respondent herein filed main original petition seeking repossession on the ground that the petitioner failed to enter into rental agreement as per provisions of TNRRRLT Act. The petitioner/tenant filed an application under Section 37(1) (j) of TNRRRLT Act, seeking dismissal of the main original petition on the ground that originally the site of the demised premises was let out to the petitioner on 11.03.1992 with an understanding that the petitioner could put up a superstructure thereon to run the Church. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no building was let out to it and therefore, the petition for repossession filed by the respondent in respect of the building under TNRRRLT Act is not maintainable.

3. The Rent Court dismissed the application on the ground that the question whether the building was let out to the petitioner or only vacant site was let out to the petitioner was a matter to be decided at the time of final disposal of the case based on evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a bare perusal of the rental agreement filed along with the main original petition by the respondent would establish that what was let out to the petitioner was only a vacant site and no building was let out. In such circumstances, the petition filed by the respondent for repossession of the building under TNRRRLT Act is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed based on the averment found in the main original petition and the documents filed along with the said petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that any objection as to the maintainability of the main original petition could be raised by the petitioner in his counter to the main original petition and the same shall be considered along with other issues at the time of final disposal of the original petition and the present petition for dismissal of the main original petition on preliminary issue is not at all maintainable. According to him, there is no enabling provision in the TNRRRLT Act to reject the original petition as in the case of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and he relied on the order passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.976 and 977 of 2020 in this regard.

6. A cursory look at the averment contained in the original petition would indicate that the respondent clearly admitted that there was lease deed between the petitioner and the respondent on 11.03.1992 and the said lease was for a period of eleven months commencing from 11.03.1992. It was further averred that no fresh lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted under Section 21(2) (a) of the TNRRRLT Act. Further, it was also admitted by the respondent that as per the terms of original lease deed, the petitioner was permitted to put up a temporary thatched shed for running a church and violating the same, the petitioner had put up a permanent pucca construction contrary to the terms of the lease deed. Therefore, it is clear, the building that stands in the petition mentioned property was put up by the petitioner. The lease agreement dated 11.03.1992 was filed as first document along with main original petition. A perusal of the same would indicate only vacant site was leased out to the petitioner with permission to put up the thatched shed for running a church. Even in the schedule to the rental agreement, the property was described only as a vacant land. Th