IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.5333 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.29620 of 2024 R.Paul Pandian ... Petitioner Vs.

Y.Suresh Babu ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2024 passed in R.L.T.A.No.87 of 2022 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the fair and decretal order of the Rent Court, dated 23.04.2022, passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.343 of 2019 on the file of the X Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.J.J.R.Edwin

O R D E R

Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below ordering eviction 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.Brief facts of the case are as follows :

2.1.The respondent/landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner/tenant in respect of the subject property. According to the respondent, the petitioner was a tenant under the vendor of the respondent. After purchase, the petitioner has assured the respondent a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. The respondent prepared three rental agreements, one for 1^st Shop, one for the 2^nd Shop, and the other for a Godown separately. Accordingly, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- in all, i.e., Rs.20,000/- for each portion. The petitioner has not paid the rent despite several requests made by the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- for the period from 22.03.2018 to 22.10.2019. That apart, the petitioner has failed to enter into an agreement under the new TNRRRLT Act. Further, the landlord requires the property for bona fide self-occupation. Hence, the landlord filed the application in R.L.T.O.P.No.343 of 2019 on the file of the X Court of Small Causes, Chennai, seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act.

2.2.It is the contention of the tenant before the Rent Court that there was no jural relationship between the parties. It was further stated that the subsequent purchaser cannot seek eviction under new enactment without attornment of tenancy. The petitioner was a tenant under one V.Sundar on a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. He became the tenant in the year 1991 and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- and he has been paying rent to the said V.Sundar without any default. It was further stated that the earlier owner has made an attempt to evict the tenant on 04.04.2018. In this regard, a suit has also been filed in O.S.No.1932 of 2018 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the erstwhile landlord and the tenant has obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.5136 of 2018. Therefore, it was stated that the present application filed by the respondent for eviction, is not maintainable. Further, he is ready and willing to enter into a rental agreement with subsequent purchaser of the premises. It is his contention that the time limit for entering into tenancy agreement was extended to 210 days commencing from February, 2020, which will come to an end only in September, 2020, whereas, the application for eviction has been filed on 30.04.2019 and therefore, it is premature and is liable to be dismissed.

2.3.The Rent Court framed the following points for consideration : i. Whether there exists any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent ?

ii. Whether the present petition filed by the petitioner is premature as per proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act ?

iii.Whether the petition is to be allowed on the ground under Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into written tenancy agreement as per Section 4(2) of the Act ?

2.4.Though several grounds have been raised for eviction,