IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01..07..2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.1367 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.7348 of 2024 Mrs.Vasantha Devi Purohit ..... Petitioner -Versus-

Krishna Baskar ..... Respondent Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2023 passed in R.L.T.A.No.115 of 2023 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 14.02.2023 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2020 on the file of the learned XIII Jude, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and thereby allow the civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sunilkumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivakumar for M/s.P.B.Ramanujan Associates

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller dated 14.02.2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.5 of 2020 and the learned Appellate Authority dated 07.11.2023 in R.L.T.A.No.115 of 2023, whereby an order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioner on the ground that no written tenancy agreement was entered into or in force after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (“TNRRRLT Act” for brevity).

2. The respondent/landlord contended that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises, let out to the revision petitioner-tenant for non- residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The revision petitioner- tenant unlawfully sublet the premises to Mr. Lakshman Singh and Mr. Prakash without prior written consent. Consequently, the respondent issued notices dated 09.06.2019, 24.06.2019, and 16.09.2019, terminating the tenancy and calling upon the revision petitioner-tenant to vacate. The revision petitioner- tenant, instead of complying, issued reply notices with baseless allegations. The respondent also pleaded that there was no written tenancy agreement in force as required under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, and despite opportunities, the revision petitioner-tenant failed to comply. In view of the unauthorized subletting, violation of statutory obligations, and refusal to vacate after valid termination, the respondent filed the eviction petition.

3.1 The respondent-landlord denied the allegations made in the eviction petition and asserted that the petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. She claimed to be running a textile business in the premises for over 25 years and denied any subletting, stating that her husband manages the shop, and one alleged sub-tenant was merely an employee. She contended that she never refused to enter into a tenancy agreement and sent multiple replies expressing her willingness to regularize the tenancy on the old rent and settle the matter amicably. She also claimed to have paid a significant advance of Rs.5,00,000/-

and had sent rent via money orders.

3.2 In her additional counter, the respondent argued that Section 21(2)(a)

of the Tamil Nadu Tenancy Act can be invoked only when both landlord and tenant fail to execute a written agreement. Since she was always willing to execute the agreement and the landlord failed to act, eviction under this provision is not maintainable. She further stated that the landlord failed to implead the rightful owners after the death of the original landlady, and is misusing the law for enhanced rent. She also pointed out that the building is in good condition and houses many tenants, suggesting that the eviction is motivated by rent enhancement and not genuine grounds. Thus, she prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

4. Although the ground of subletting was also raised in the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord ultimately confined the claim for eviction solely to the ground of non-execution of a written tenancy