IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Civil Revision Petition No.4285 of 2023 and CMP.No.26049 of 2023 K. Pandurangan .. Petitioner Versus G. Dilip Raj .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 05.09.2023 passed in RLTA.No.71 of 2022 by the learned XX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirmed the order dated 01.04.2022 passed in RLTOP No. 216 of 2020, by the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr. C. P. Sivamohan for K.Aruljothi For Respondent : Mr. P. Britto

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 05.09.2023 passed in RLTA. No. 71 of 2022 passed by the learned XX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the order dated 01.04.2022 passed in RLTOP No. 216 of 2020 on the file of XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

1\8

2. Heard, Mr. C. P. Sivamohan, learned counsel for Mr. K.Aruljothi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Britto, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlord/respondent has filed RLTOP. No. 216 of 2020 under Section 21(2)(a), 21(2)(g) and 23 of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, (Act 42 of 2017), for repossession of the tenanted premises on the ground of failure to enter in to an agreement as per Section 4(2) of the Act, own use and occupation and compensation of double the monthly rent for using the premises after termination of tenancy by notice. On considering both side submissions, the learned Rent Controller allowed the said petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act and fixed one month time from the date of the order for eviction of the premises.

4. Aggrieved by the order and decreetal order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Rent Controller/XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RLTOP. No. 216 of 2020, the petitioner/tenant has filed RLTA. No .71 of 2022 and the same was dismissed by the learned appellate Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2\8

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgement of this Court in CRP. No. 445 of 2023, dated 06.04.2023 in the case of M/s.Top Kapi vs S.Sarath Babu wherein in Para No.13 it was held as follows:

13. Before dealing further, it is necessary to look into Section 21(2)(a) of the Act which deals with repossession of the premises by the landlord.

“21.Repossession of the premises by the landlord (1) A tenant shall not be evicted during the continuance of tenancy except in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)

(2) The Rent Court may, on an application made to it in the manner as may be prescribed, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that the landlord and tenant have failed to enter into an agreement under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 (b) ...........”

14. Thus, it is evident that one of the grounds available to a landlord to repossess the tenanted premises is the failure of the tenant to come forward to enter into a written agreement within the time stipulated under the Act.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the landlord was not inclined to enter into new lease agreement with the tenant within the period stipulated under the new Act inspite of reply notice given to him. After issuance of the notice there is a period of 7 months time to enter into an agreement, but before exhausting that period the landlord has filed the application for eviction as such it is totally erroneous. The Courts below also failed to appreciate the same, hence, he prayed to set aside the orders passed

3\8 by the courts below and thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition, as prayed for.

7. T