Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
M. Nainmal Sagarmal Kankariya – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Baskar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3328 of 2025 | RLTA No. 69 of 2022 | RLTOP No. 290 / 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit
For the Respondents: Mr. V.Sivakumar, for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates
Eviction proceedings are maintainable under the Tamil Nadu Tenancy Act, even if filed before the end of the stipulated grace period for entering into a written agreement.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Sections 4(2) and 21(2)(a) - Eviction petition - Tenant challenging eviction based on non-execution of tenancy agreement - Landlord required to seek eviction due to tenant's failure to enter into written agreement as per provisions of the Act - No statutory bar on filing of eviction petition during grace period; mere assertions by tenant insufficient to challenge maintainability. (Paras 1, 4, 26)
(B) Rent Control - Obligation to enter into a written tenancy agreement - Tenant cannot invoke grace period to escape eviction when landlord has duly initiated proceedings under the Act - Notion of prejudice does not arise; eviction maintainable notwithstanding tenant's assertions. (Paras 24, 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
Eviction petition filed by landlord against tenant for failure to execute a written tenancy agreement as mandated under the TNRRRLT Act 2017. The petition was challenged by the tenant claiming the eviction was premature based on the statutory grace period.
Findings of Court:
Court held that the very object of the Act is to regulate tenancy, and a failure to comply with the requirement of entering into an agreement does provide grounds for eviction, regardless of which party was at fault.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the maintainability of an eviction application filed before the expiry of the grace period prescribed for executing a tenancy agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord are maintainable regardless of the tenant's claims of premature application, underscoring the necessity of a written agreement as mandated by the statute.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for eviction due to non-execution of tenancy agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. matters concerning premature application for eviction. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. clarifications on statutory obligations of tenant and landlord. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. the court's view on maintaining eviction applications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. interpreting statutory timelines under the act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. discussion of cause of action and its relevance to eviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. outcome of the eviction petition. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller dated 24.11.2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.290 of 2019 and the learned Appellate Authority dated 18.08.2023 in R.L.T.A.No.69 of 2022, whereby an order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioner on the ground that no written tenancy agreement was entered into or in force after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (“TNRRRLT Act” for brevity).
2. The respondent/landlord contended that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises, let out to the revision petitioner-tenant for non- residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.900/-. The revision petitioner-tenant has unlawfully sublet the premises without written consent of the respondent- landlord. Consequently, the respondent issued notices dated 09.06.2019, 24.06.2019, and 16.09.2019 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the revision petitioner-tenant to vacate. The revision petitioner-tenant, instead of complying, issued reply notices with baseless allegations. The respondent also pleaded that there was no written tenancy agreement in force as required under Section 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 , and despite opportunities, the revision petitioner-tenant failed to comply. In view of the unauthorized subletting, violation of statutory obligations, and refusal to vacate after valid termination, the respondent filed the eviction petition.
3.1 The petitioner-tenant denied the allegations made in the eviction petition and asserted that the petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. He never sublet the portion to anybody. The respondent landlord at no point of time called him for entering into a lease agreement with him and there is no proof for the same. He never refused to enter into a tenancy agreement. The petitioner- tenant is always ready and willing to enter into lease agreement with the respondent-landlord.
3.2 In his additional counter, the respondent argued that Section 21 (2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Tenancy Act can be invoked only when both landlord and tenant fail to execute a written agreement. Since he was always willing to execute the agreement and the landlord failed to act, eviction under this provision is not maintainable. He further stated that the landlord is misusing the law for enhanced rent. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.
4. Although the ground of subletting was also raised in the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord ultimately confined the claim for eviction solely to the ground of non-execution of a written tenancy agreement after the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 came into force. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted the petition contending that the eviction was premature, and that the landlord ought to have awaited the expiry of the 575-day period contemplated under Section 4 (2) of the Act before initiating eviction proceedings.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the rent court framed a lone point for consideration, namely, whether the eviction petition was liable to be allowed on the ground of failure to enter into a tenancy agreement as required under Section 21 (2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibi
