O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order and decretal order passed in RLTA No.58 of 2021 dated 08.07.2022 confirming the order and decretal order passed in RLTOP No.459 of 2020 dated

28.10.2021.

2. The revision petitioner states that she is living in the Subject Property for the past about 5½ years along with her mother Smt.Jegajothi, son Yugender and daughter Thirisha. The respondent is the owner of the Subject Property.

3. The revision petitioner states that the respondent is an Advocate and enquired about the revision petitioner's family that she is a divorcee doing financial business. From and out of the said income she is running the family. The mother of the revision petitioner is working in Registration Office and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.

4. The revision petitioner states that she had given old currency notes before Demonetisation, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twently Lakhs) and accordingly, entered into a lease agreement for 5 years, in respect of the Subject Property. The respondent agreed to repay the said amount by way of new currency. On 09.09.2017, the respondent leased out his entire premises to the revision petitioner after taking the old currency notes amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- from her.

5. The revision petitioner has narrated certain incidents occurred between the revision petitioner / tenant and the respondent / landlord. Those occurrences were based on certain oral transactions, which were considered by the Rent Court and the Appellate Court.

6. The Rent Court considered all such facts as narrated by the revision petitioner and found that there is no written tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant as per Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Right and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (here in after referred as 'the TNRRRLT Act'). The ingredients for granting relief under Section 21(2)(a) failure to enter into a written agreement under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act are clearly made out and accordingly, the petition for eviction filed by the landlord was allowed.

7. The petition filed by the respondent / landlord was allowed, under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an Appeal in RLTA No.58 of 2021. The Appellate Court considered the facts, circumstances and evidences. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner before the Appellate Court were the Rent Court has failed to examine the oral and documentary evidences of the revision petitioner. The respondent inducted the revision petitioner as a tenant during the year 2017 before the commencement of the new Act of the year 2017 and at the time of induction of the revision petitioner as a tenant, the respondent received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as an advance, but not issued any receipt to the revision petitioner. The default in payment of rent was also refused. It is contended that the respondent / landlord never come forward to execute a rent agreement with the revision petitioner.

8. Considering the grounds raised by the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court had gone into the correctness of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court in RLTOP No.459 of 2020 . The Appellate Court has found that the jural relationship of tenant landlord was admitted between the parties and admittedly, there was no written tenancy agreement as contemplated in the TNRRRLT Act. Since the jural relationship was admitted and there was no written agreement under the provisions of the Act, the other grounds raised became unnecessary.

9. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The revision petitioner is in occupation of the premises from the year 2017 onwards. Even during the operation of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Right and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, there is no written lease agreement between the revision petitioner and the respondent. Both the Rent Court and the Appellate Co