C O M M O N O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.587 of 2022 has been preferred to set aside the order passed by the learned XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.P.No.1 of 2021 in RLTOP No.420 of 2020 dated 31.01.2022.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1937 of 2022 has been preferred to set aside the order and decree passed in RLTOP SR.No.694 of 2022 dated 18.04.2022, on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Chennai and consequently, direct the Rent Court to number the RLTOP and decide the same on merits.

3. Heard Mr.Anirudh Krishnan and Mr.M.Sunil Kumar, learned counsels for the petitioners in both Civil Revision Petitions and Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent in C.R.P.No.587 of 2022 and also perused the materials placed on record.

4. The short facts of the case in C.R.P.No.587 of 2022 are as follows:

The revision petitioner claims himself as a tenant under the respondent/landlord. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition in RLTOP.No.420 of 2020, for recovery of possession under the new Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017 as amended by Act 39 of 2018). During the pendency of the said petition, a miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner herein in M.P.No.1 of 2021, seeking to dismiss the eviction petition as not maintainable, in view of the repugnancy between Section 5(3) of the Act (Act 42 of 2017) and Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act (Act 4 of 1882). The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved over that, the tenant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The short facts involved in the Miscellaneous Petition are as follows:

The revision petitioner is a Diagnostic Centre by name M/s.Primex Healthcare and Research Private Limited which involves in providing medical services like scan and other laboratory services. The petitioner Centre was established at the respondent's premises on a rental basis. The terms of the rent was reduced into writing by virtue of an agreement of lease dated 22.01.2011. The monthly rent was agreed at Rs.5,41,000/-per month in the beginning and later it was reduced to Rs.4,05,750/- per month. Owing to Covid-19 pandemic and resultant lock down, the petitioner suffered a rough phase. Hence he needed to shut down his centre from 24.03.2020. However the petitioner has paid rent upto December 2020 in terms of the lease agreement. But the respondent had chosen to file a petition for eviction on the ground of failure to enter into an agreement and wilful default in payment of rent and parting with the possession of the property without obtaining a written consent of the landlord. The petitioner was remitting the rent regularly and that is being accepted by the respondent, the original lease agreement that was entered into on 02.04.2018 was subsequently amended on 15.12.2019 by which the rent was reduced from Rs.5,41,000/- to Rs.4,05,750/-. After the expiry of lease agreement in December 2020, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the suit property and the respondent has also accepted the same.

5.1. While Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act recognizes holding over of lease, Section 5(3) of the New Act (Act 42 of 2017) prohibits holding over. Since the Transfer of Property Act is a Central Act and the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is a State Act, there is repugnancy between the State Act and the Central Act. When there is repugnancy, the State Act which did not receive the presidential assent, cannot prevail over the Central Act. Hence the petition filed by the respondent for eviction should be dismissed as not maintainable.

6. The respondent landlord has resisted the above application by stating that the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is a Special Act which provides faster adjudication of the disputes between the landlord and the tena