Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Mrs.Panku Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mr.R.Mangilal Ranka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the tenancy background. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of written agreements for tenancy validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legislative intent to enforce rent regulation through agreements. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling on eviction timeline and implications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. A challenge has been made to the order of the Rent Court and Appellate Court in ordering eviction.
Brief background of the case:
2. The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondents and a monthly rent of Rs.960/- had been fixed in the year 2007. According to the petitioner, after introduction of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017'), the respondents did not come forward for executing an agreement as mandated under law. As there is no written agreement entered into between the parties, eviction was sought under Sections 21 (2)(a) and 23 of the Act, 2017. The Rent Court ordered for eviction of the revision petitioner, against which, she had filed an appeal, wherein the order of the Rent Court has been upheld and challenging the same, the instant revision petition has been
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
