O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai/Rent Tribunal made in R.L.T.A. No.57 of 2021.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/

landlady has filed a petition in RLTOP.No.354 of 2019 on the file of XIV Small Causes Court/Rent Court for eviction (i) on the ground of failure to execute the written tenancy agreement; (ii) for own use and occupation; and (iii) for compensation of double the monthly rent under Section 23 of The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act). By order dated 02.11.2011, the said original petition was allowed by the Rent Court only on the ground of failure to execute the written tenancy agreement and it was dismissed on the grounds raised under Sections 21(2)(g) and 23 of the Act. Further, an order of eviction was also passed. Aggrieved over that, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant in RLTA.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the Rent Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the impugned order by confirming the order of the Rent Court. Aggrieved by that, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant. Even though eviction has been ordered only on the ground of failure to execute the written tenancy agreement, the respondent/landlady has not filed any cross appeal by pressing other grounds or other reliefs. As such, there is an eviction order passed against the revision petitioner and that is under challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Section 4(2) of the Act would prescribe 575 days for executing the written tenancy; only if the petitioner/tenant fails to execute the written tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the Act i.e.22.02.2019, the respondent/ landlady can invoke the said ground under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act; the said period would expire only around September-2020; even before the expiry of the said period, the respondent/landlady came forward with the original petition and it is a premature one. In fact, the revision petitioner/tenant sent an e-mail on 23.08.2019, followed by a letter sent by registered post on 25.09.2019 calling upon the respondent/landlady to enter into a lease agreement in terms of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has placed reliance on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Lalithkumar Vs. Premila Jain [CRP(NPD).No.1997 of 2021 dated 25.01.2022] wherein it is held that the landlord rushed to the Court without having a meaningful discussion with the tenant and without waiting for the period of 575 days to expire.

5.1. On similar facts, another order of the same learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramesh Salunkhe Vs. Pramila Jain [reported in 2022-1-L.W. 481] is relied upon wherein it has been held that there is no failure on the part of the tenant and further, no agreement of tenancy can be entered into when there is a cloud on the title of the landlady.

5.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, the landlady had settled the property in question in favour of her son Mr.Ganesh Gunasekaran by virtue of a settlement deed dated 22.02.2012; the said settlement deed was not produced before the Rent Court and hence, the Court has to take adverse presumption against the landlady; when the title was transferred in favour of a third party, the respondent/landlady has no locus standi to file any eviction petition; further, the jurisdiction of the Rent Court is limited only with regard to the tenancy agreement and the question of title of ownership of the premises shall be beyond its jurisdiction.

5.3. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, th