Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 54503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Sree Annamalaiyar Educational Trust – Appellant
Versus
Saraswathi Educational Cultural and Charitable Trust – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1601 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.9248 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Asokan
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel for Mrs.C.Shankary
The absence of a written lease agreement post-expiration validates eviction under RLTA, reinforcing tenant responsibilities on rent payable.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Section 21(2)(a) - Tenant's eviction - Concurrent findings of lower courts regarding eviction upheld as tenant remained overdue on rent and failed to execute a new lease agreement, despite an initial agreement expiring in 2019 - The mandatory requirement of the Act regarding a written agreement was not fulfilled, justifying eviction under said provision. (Paras 12-14)
(B) Eviction Proceedings - Legal Representation - Challenge to eviction petition filed by a representative whose authority was not contested at trial - Tenant not entitled to raise such an issue on appeal - Clear consent inferred from lack of objection by other trustees.
(C) Default - Non-payment of rent admitted by tenant - Failure to establish payment of arrears or objection to eviction petition further cemented grounds for ruling. (Paras 11, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner entered into a lease agreement and failed to renew it post-2019, accruing substantial dues, leading to the landlord seeking eviction through formal proceedings under the RLTA.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decisions made by the lower courts, confirming that the petitioner was in default and that the landlord’s right to seek eviction was valid under the RLTA due to non-compliance with the act’s provisions regarding agreements.
Issues: The key issues involved the lack of a written lease agreement after expiration, the status of the eviction petitioner’s representation, and non-payment of due rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts emphasized the importance of a written lease agreement under the RLTA, stating that the expiration of the initial contract and the failure to re-establish it formed a solid basis for eviction. Non-payment of rent further justified the eviction, regardless of the lack of written objections from the tenant.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the tenant's default and the nature of the lease (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. importance of written agreements as per rlta and grounds for eviction (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. emphasis on representation and the validity of eviction petition (Para 14 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. final ruling on merits of the case (Para 20) |
O R D E R
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below ordering eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “RLTA” for brevity), the present revision has been filed by the tenant.
2.Brief facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are as follows:
The revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of the subject properties. An advance of Rs.20,00,000/- is said to have been paid by the petitioner. A Lease Deed was originally registered for a period of three years on 10.07.2013. It was renewed for another period of three years till 2019. Thereafter, by efflux of time, the period of lease came to an end. According to the respondent/landlord, the revision petitioner is on due of a sum of Rs.52,85,000/-. Despite the non-payment of arrears, the revision petitioner have insisted for renewal or extension of the lease and the same has been negatived by the landlord. Since the petitioner made an attempt in August, 2022, to lock the First Floor building, and as the rent has not been paid and further, by advent of the new Act (RLTA), as the lease has not been registered, the respondent sought eviction in R.L.T.O.P.No.34 of 2022 under Section 21(2)(a) of RLTA.
3.A counter has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant admitting that the lease was entered for a period of three years originally and thereafter, renewed subject to increase of 5% on the prevailing rent at the end of every year. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that they have been maintaining the premises in a good and tenable condition and taking care of routine painting, cleaning the glass windows, etc. The respondent is a Trust formed by one Mr.P.Navamani, Managing Trustee, and Mrs.N.Priyanka and Mrs.R.Amutha were Trustees. The respondent is running an Institute of Hotel Management and initially, only 40 to 50 students were studying and now, there are more than 400 students studying in the Institution. There were exchange of communications between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has reiterated that they will clear the arrears as early as possible, and opposed the application for eviction.
4.Before the trial Court, on the side of the petitioner therein, one Mrs.Priyadharshini Rajkumar, representing the landlord Trust, was examined P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P25 were marked. On the side of the respondent therein, one Mr.Navamani, representing the tenant Trust was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked. The trial Court, after considering the jural relationship between the parties, the nature of pleadings and evidence, found that the tenant is a defaulter and further, there was no agreement registered as mandated by Section 4(2) of the RLTA, and ordered eviction by order dated 02.09.2023.
5.Challenging the same, an Appeal in R.L.T.A.No.4 of 2024 has been filed before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee. The Appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial Court, by its order dated 24.02.2025.
6.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below ordering eviction, the present revision has been filed.
7.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant is that the respondent/landlord has been represented by one Mrs.Priyadharshini Rajkumar. According to him, the status of the said person as to whether she is a Trustee or Agent or Power of Attorney, etc., has not been established. Therefore, it is his contention that, in the absence of empowerment by the Trust, the Trust cannot be rep
