ORDER

The tenant in RLTOP No.3 of 2020 has come forward with this revision petition, challenging an order of the Rent Court passed in M.P.No.1 of

2021, rejecting his plea on the issue of the very maintainability of RLTOP.

To provide the factual backdrop, the respondents/landlords have earlier instituted RCOP No.286 of 2018 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hence forth will be referred to as Old Act). Besides this, there are other suit/proceedings between the parties, which are not very germane for the current purpose. On 05.09.2019, RCOP No.286 of 2018 came to be dismissed for default. In between, on 22.02.2019, the old Act was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2019 (hereinafter would be referred to as the New Act). Subsequently, the landlords have laid the present RLTOP No.3 of 2020 seeking eviction of the tenant that there is no the rent agreement between the landlords and the tenant registered with the Rent Authority is available, a ground provided under Sec.21(2)(a) of the Act.

2. The contention of the revision petitioner /tenant is that in terms of Section 47(2) of the New Act, in all situations where an eviction proceedings under the old Act was dismissed for default, the only option open to the landlord is to restore the said proceedings, and seek the leave of the Rent Controller for a switch over to the New Act. In the context of this case it would mean that the landlords, if they are keen to invoke the provisions of the new Act, should first engage in reviving RCOP No.286 of 2018, and then go through the switch-over route as provided under Sec.47(2) of the New Act. To state it differently, a landlord who does not follow Sec.47(2) route is barred from invoking the provisions of the New Act. This argument was rejected by the learned Rent Court. This has brought the tenant before this Court with this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was seen in her relentless best in emphasising the sustainability of the very contention which the tenant had advanced before the Rent Court. The efforts of the learned counsel however, struggled to persuade this Court, as it, in the view of this Court, roamed outside the borders of the legislative space which Sec.47(2)

of the new Act has created. Sec. 47 of the new Act reads:

“47. Repeal and savings :

(1) The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of this Act, all cases and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Act had not been passed:

(1)

Provided that the plaintiff within a period of 180 days of coming into force of this Act shall be entitled to withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh application in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceeding under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and for the purposes of limitation, such application if it is filed within a period of 270 days from the commencement of this Act be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the suit which was withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of appeal or other proceedings on the date on which the suit was filed out of which such appeal or proceeding originated.''

If Sec.47 is analysed for its content, it declares that the old Act was repealed, but also provides a window for switch-over from the old to the New Act. This provides for three situations:

(a)After the coming into force of the New Act, recourse to old Act is not available. [Sec.41(1) of the new Act]

(b)If any proceedings under the old Act is pen