The court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and unauthorized encroachment, emphasizing the necessity of written agreements under the relevant tenancy law.

O R D E R

Challenge has been made to the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller Appellate authority directing eviction of the revision petitioner.

2. Brief background of the case is as follows : The respondents are the owners of the premises. The first respondent is the absolute owner of the property and the second respondent is her son and he was collecting the rent. The revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant in August 2011 by virtue of a rental agreement for a period of five years. Ever since the date of agreement, the revision petitioner was regular in payment of the monthly rents till March 2020. He is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards rental arrears. That apart, the revision petitioner has unauhorizedly encroached into the additional space and installed a tea stalls, food counter etc.. Therefore, the first respondent has issued a notice to surrender possession.

3. Whereas, it is the case of the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has entered into a rental agreement with the first respondent for running a hotel in the ground floor in respect of 900 sq.ft. However, in respect of the remaining portion of 300 sq.ft. in the ground floor, he has entered into an agreement with one Vasanth, who is another son of the first respondent and an advance of Rs. 7 lakhs has also been paid to him. According to the revision petitioner, he was paying the rent fixed by the said Vasanth and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was directly paid to the said Vasanth and he paid total rent of Rs.50,000/- towards rent for ground floor premises. According to him, he has entered into an agreement with the said Vasanth for 215 sq.ft. Hence, opposed the application filed by the first respondent before the rent controller on the ground that the other landlord has not been impleaded and he has not been made a party.

4. Considering the entire evidence, the rent controller has allowed the application and the same has been confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the other landlord has not been impleaded. According to him, the revision petitioner has entered into an agreement in respect of 275 sq.ft. with one Vasanth, who is another owner of the property. Therefore, according to him, both the Courts have not considered this aspect properly and the application for impleading the other owner has been dismissed.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no document has been filed to substantiate the fact that there was an agreement with the said Vasanth and he has been collecting rent and acting as a landlord. It is his further contention that after commencement of Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act , 2017, the agreement should have been registered and that will also give a right to the land for possession under section 21[2] [a] of the Act, which has been considered by the rent controller as well as the appellate Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision.

7. I have perused entire material available on record. The original agreement with the second respondent in the year 2011 is not disputed by the revision petitioner. It is his specific contention that in respect of another extent of 275 sq.ft., he has entered into an agreement with one Vasanth. However, no such agreement, whatsoever, has been produced even before the trial Court. Therefore, merely on basis of the oral submissions, it cannot be said that there is an agreement with another person. Be that as it may.

8. The respondents are mother and son. Even assuming that other co- owners have not been impleaded, that will not take away the right of the landlord, the second respondent