Absence of a written tenancy agreement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act justifies eviction proceedings.

ORDER

Challenging the order of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.A.No.38 of 2025, dated 23.04.2025, confirming the order of the XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.L.T.O.P.No.322 of 2023, dated 29.08.2024, 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” or “the new Act”), the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.

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

2.1.It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the subject premises on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- exclusive of electricity charges, for commercial purposes. It is stated that there was no advance paid. It is further stated that the tenancy commenced 40 years ago. There was no written agreement between the parties. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent from December, 2022 to March, 2023 and the accrued rental arrears is to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner on 06.02.2023. The petitioner sent a reply on 13.02.2023 refuting the contentions. However, the petitioner neither paid the rental arrears nor vacated the premises. Therefore, the respondent filed the eviction application before the Rent Controller, under Section 21 (2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act for non-entering into a written agreement.

2.2.The petitioner/tenant opposed the eviction application before the Rent Controller. It is the contention of the petitioner that the subject premises was leased out to the petitioner before 50 years and there is no rental agreement executed between the parties. It is stated that the petitioner had given a Money Order dated 17.04.2023 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- even before receiving notice from the Rent Court in rent control proceedings and the same has been encashed by the respondent. Therefore, it is his specific case that there is no willful default. It is the contention of the petitioner that the application under Section 21 (2)(a) of the new Act is not maintainable since the predecessor enactment recognized oral tenancies and the general law namely the Transfer of Property Act also recognized oral tenancies.

2.3.The Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 21 (2)(a) on the ground of non-entering into a written tenancy agreement and ordered eviction.

2.4.Challenging the order of eviction, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Rent Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

2.5.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Court below, ordering eviction under Section 21 (2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit that there is no jural relationship between the parties. Since the subject property is a Waqf property, the Rent Court has no jurisdiction as per Section 3 (d) of the new Act. It is his contention that the respondent has not made any averment in the application stating that he is the landlord. Hence, the eviction petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of eviction.

4.Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the subject property is not a Waqf property. Admittedly, there is no written agreement between the parties. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction under Section 21 (2)(a)