S. Muruganandam VS J. Joseph

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

R.SUBRAMANIAN
S. Muruganandam – Appellant
Versus
J. Joseph – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. P.B. Balaji, Advocate

ORDER

R. Subramanian, J.—Challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions is to the orders of the Rent Court passed in various Original Petitions filed under the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, hereinafter referred to as “the New Act” for the sake of brevity and convenience, rejecting the said original petitions on the ground of maintainability.

2. The only reason for rejection of these petitions even at the stage of numbering is the absence of a registered Tenancy Agreement, which according to the Rent Court, is mandatory for the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of the Rent Court under the New Act. Before dealing with the individual cases, it will be advantageous to refer to the object and the provisions of the New Act, which are germane for our purposes.

3. The object of the enactment is to establish a frame work for the regulation of rent and to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants and to provide fast adjudication process for resolution of disputes, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(a) defines an “Agreement” or a “Tenancy Agreement” as follows:

Section 2(a): “agreem