ORDER

The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Theni. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners from the suit property. The petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.5 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint. The trial Court, by order dated 25.04.2022, dismissed the interlocutory application and as against the same, the petitioners have moved the instant revision petition.

2.The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit as against the petitioners for eviction, for depositing payment of rent and arrears of rent and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the proposed construction of first floor by the respondent in the suit property. The case of the respondent is that he has purchased the property on 03.08.2017 from the petitioners and at the request of the petitioners, a tenancy agreement was entered into between them that the petitioners intended to remain as tenants for a period of five months on an agreed rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioners neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent and therefore, the respondent filed the suit.

3.The petitioners filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.220 of 2018 to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondent ought to have initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act'). The remedy for the respondent is only before the competent Rent Controller and not by filing the civil suit. This contention of the petitioners was not accepted by the trial Court and therefore, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioners, by referring the provision under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Act') submitted that this Section bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings for eviction except on the question of title and ownership. However, the trial Court has dismissed the application holding that the provisions of the Act are not attracted or extended to the Palanichettipatti Town Panchayat where the suit property is situated.

5.By referring the definition under Section 2(d) of the new Act, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the local authority is defined under the Act as a Town Panchayat or Municipality. Palanichettipatti is a Town Panchayat within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the new Act, where the suit property is situated and therefore, the new Act is very much applicable in this case. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anthony v. Kc.Ittoop and Others [(2000) 6 SCC 394] and submitted that eviction of tenant can be considered only when an application is moved in that behalf before the competent Rent Controller. Therefore, the suit is barred under the new Act, however, the trial Court without considering the same has dismissed the application.

6.Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that when the respondent purchased the property from the petitioners in the year 2017, the petitioners have requested some time for vacating the premises and therefore, an unregistered agreement was made for a period of five months on 03.08.2017 by fixing the monthly rent as Rs.5,000/-. The petitioners neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises and therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the suit. The suit is also ripe for trial and at this stage, the petitioners have filed this application.

7.He further submitted that as per Sections 4(1) & 4(3) of the new Act, every tenancy agreement shall be in writing and shall be registered with the Rent Authority by the landlord or tenant. Admittedly, there is no registered agreement between the petitioners and the respondent. In the absence of any registered agreement between the parties, the respondent is