The Rent Court's jurisdiction is limited to tenancy agreements; issues regarding property ownership cannot negate a landlord-tenant relationship established by rent payments.

ORDER

Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, the present revision has been filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Rent Court.

3. The applicant/landlord has filed an application under Section

21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”) for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the written rental agreement has not been registered within 575 days.

4. The stand of the respondent/tenant is that though the applicant used to collect the rents, and the rents have been paid regularly by the respondent, there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. One R.K.Manulal has filed a similar petition for eviction against the father of the respondent in RCOP No.2322 of 1976, and the same was dismissed on 28.04.1978. According to the respondent, the applicant has not proved that the premises belonged to him. Even after termination notice, the applicant has collected the rent from the respondent. Only after filing of the eviction petition, he refused to receive the rent. Hence, opposed the application.

5. Before the Rent Court, on the side of the applicant/landlord, the applicant examined himself as PW.1 and on the side of the respondent/tenant, the respondent examined herself as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked..

6. The Rent Court, taking note of the submissions and the documents filed, allowed the application by an order dated 18.10.2023. However, the First Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 03.02.2025 in RLTA No.5 of 2024, dismissed the RCOP and allowed the appeal on the ground that since the permanent land register reflects the name of Gurunanak Trust, the applicant/landlord is not entitled for eviction. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the applicant/landlord.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant/landlord would submit that the First Appellate Authority ought not to have gone into the title when the very Act itself clearly stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Rent Court is limited only with regard to the tenancy agreement. The question of title or ownership of the premises shall be beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. Further, the very counter indicates that rents were received by the applicant and rents have been regularly paid by the respondent. Hence, It cannot be said that there was no jural relationship between the parties and further, the very rent receipts filed by the respondent before the Rent Court proves the jural relationship between the parties.

8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that one R.K.Manulal had earlier filed RCOP in the year 1976 against the respondent's father before the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, which was dismissed on 28.04.1978. There was no jural relationship between the parties and the permanent land register reflects the name of the Gurunanak Trust. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to seek eviction. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 3(c) of the Act extends to the Trust property.

9. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the materials available on records carefully.

10. Now, the point arose for consideration is that whether there is jural relationship between the parties or not.

11. Though there was no written agreement entered into between the parties, the fact is that the applicant was collecting the rents from the very beginning and the rents have been regularly paid by the respondent to the applicant. The said facts have been admitted in the very counter itself. That apart,