IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01..07..2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.4396 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.24439 of 2024 Lalith Kumar ..... Petitioner -Versus-

Krishna Baskar ..... Respondent Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2024 passed in R.L.T.A.No.140 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 22.02.2023 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.284 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Jude, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and thereby allow the civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : 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 Rent Court, dated 22.02.2023 in R.L.T.O.P. No. 284 of 2019, and the learned Rent Tribunal, dated 12.07.2024 in R.L.T.A. No. 140 of 2023, whereby an order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioner on the ground that there was no written tenancy agreement 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 revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord.

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties in this revision will be referred to by their legal jural relationship as 'tenant' and 'landlord' 3. The respondent/landlord pleaded before the rent court that he is the absolute owner of the premises at No. 6A/3, Ground Floor, Kasi Chetty Lane, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079, leased to the tenant for non-residential use at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/-, excluding electricity charges and TDS. He alleged that the tenant sublet the premises to one Mr. Hemanth without written consent. Despite repeated termination notices, the tenant denied subletting and made false claims. Cheques sent by the tenant were received without prejudice and not encashed. As no written agreement exists as required under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, the eviction petition was filed.

4.1 Before the rent court, the revision petitioner/tenant contended that the landlord never invited him to execute a lease agreement and that the termination notice was fabricated and unserved. He claimed consistent willingness to formalize the lease, even sending a draft agreement, which was ignored. He further stated that he recently signed a lease deed provided by the landlord, but the signed copy has not been returned. Hence, he sought dismissal of the petition.

4.2 In his additional counter, the tenant contended that he has always been ready and willing to enter into a lease agreement, and that a letter dated 09.05.2019 reflects the applicant's similar intent, which was deliberately suppressed. He claimed tenancy since 45 years ago under one Subburathamma, to whom he initially paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance and additional amounts totaling around Rs. 40,000/- over time. After Subburathamma's death, the applicant began collecting rent on her behalf, despite a letter dated 27.09.2000 from her directing rent to be paid only to her. The property allegedly devolved upon M.S. Radha Lakshmi and Krishna Baskar, and the non-impleadment of co-owner Radha Lakshmi renders the petition unsustainable. He also expressed willingness to pay a reasonable rent increase.

5. Although subletting was initially raised as a ground, the landlord ultimately confined the eviction claim solely to the absence of a valid written lease agreement after the commencement of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, which mandates such an agreement; thus, continued possession without it violates the Act and warrants eviction.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the rent court framed a lone point for consideration, namely, whether the eviction petition was liable to be allowed on the ground of failure to enter into a tenancy a