IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.454 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.2170 of 2024 Vijayraj Bhandari ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Mangi Devi 2.Hitesh J.Jain

3.Mahipal J.Jain

4.Teena J.Jain ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed in R.L.T.A.No.140 of 2022 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the order of the Rent Court passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.744 of 2021 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sunil For Respondents : Mr.Ralph V.Manohar

O R D E R

Challenging the order of the Rent Appellate Tribunal reversing the order of the Rent Court dismissing the application for eviction filed by the landlord under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the TNRRRLT Act”), the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

2.The factual matrix of the case is as follows :

2.1.The petitioner was originally inducted as a tenant in the subject premises by the erstwhile owner of the property namely Sha Misrimal Sahibajee. The petitioner has been a tenant for more than 40 years, using the property for non-residential purposes. The present monthly rent is Rs.2,000/-. While so, the respondents became the owners by way of inheritance. The said fact is not in dispute. Admittedly, there is no tenancy agreement between the landlords and tenant in this case. After the respondents became the owners of the property, the respondents sent a letter dated 13.07.2020 calling upon the petitioner to enter into tenancy agreement. However, the petitioner issued a reply letter dated 31.07.2020 raising several allegations. Once again, the respondents sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2020 calling upon the petitioner to enter into a new tenancy agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent a reply notice dated 26.10.2020 stating his no objection to enter into rental agreement and it appears that he also paid some rental arrears. Thereafter, on 19.02.2021, the respondents sent a letter attaching the original tenancy agreement fixing the rent of Rs.25,000/-. However, the petitioner sent a reply dated 17.03.2021 refusing to accept the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the respondents sent a legal notice dated 26.03.2021 calling upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises, for which, the petitioner replied by letter dated 03.04.2021 stating that he is not willing to enter into rental agreement. Therefore, the respondents filed an application for eviction before the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.L.T.O.P.No.744 of 2021, seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

2.2.It is the contention of the petitioner before the Rent Court that he has been paying the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and he had paid even the rental arrears as demanded by the respondent vide their letter dated 14.10.2020. It was further stated that the petitioner expressed his willingness to accept the rent as per old terms, however, the respondents have demanded an exorbitant monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- which is 733% of the existing rent. It was further stated that the petitioner was initially willing to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month and further, he increased his offer to Rs.8,000/- which itself is 400% increase from the existing rent. It was stated that the respondents have demanded exorbitant rent with a mala fide intention to evict the tenant. Hence, he opposed the eviction petition.

2.3.The Rent Court, by reyling upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramesh Salunkhe v. Pramila Jain [C.R.P.(NPD) No.1996 of 2021, dated 25.01.2022], held that the agreement has to be entered into with regard to “that tenancy” as contained in Secti