Advocates:
['GOVIND CHANDRASEKHAR', '', 'HARIKRISHNAN R', 'T M MANO', 'PRAVEEN PUROHIT', 'SHARATH CHANDRAN']

C.R.P.No.2901 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.09.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.2901 of 2022

D.V.Karunaakar

... Petitioner/Landlord

Versus

Mukesh Recreation Club,

Represented by its Secretaruy,

N.Yazhini,

New No.84, GN Chetty Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

... Respondent/Tenant

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, praying to set aside order dated 17.08.2022, passed in RLTOP

Sr.No.4939 of 2022 by learned X Judge Small Causes, Rent Court, Chennai

and consequently direct the Court below to dispose of the said RLTOP

Sr.No.4939 of 2022 on merits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Sharath Chandran

For Respondent

: No appearance

*****

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order passed by

the Rent Court (X Small Causes Judge, Rent Court, Chennai) dated

17.08.2022.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2901 of 2022

2. By the docket order, the learned Rent Court returned the petition filed

by the Revision Petitioner seeking repossession of the demised premises of the

petitioner under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of

Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. According to the Rent Court, the lease

agreement between the parties dated 30.01.2019 is still in operation, but the

same was not registered as required under Section 43 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017.

Hence, the petition filed by the Landlord/Revision Petitioner is not

maintainable.

3. This Court in a case reported in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3317 of 2019 has

held that mere failure of the parties to register the agreement under TNRRRLT

act is not a ground for refusing to entertain the petition filed by the landlord or

tenant. The relevant observation of the learned Judge is as follows:

"14. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered

opinion that, the reasons cited by the Registrar of Small

Causes Court, which is impugned herein, for returning the

papers by not entertaining the application (RLTOP), is

unsustainable and therefore, this Court feels that, a

suitable direction can be given to the Rent Court/Small

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2901 of 2022

Causes Court. Registry to number the RLTOP, if it is

otherwise in order."

4. The learned Rent Court Judge, while returning the petition, relied on

the decision of this Court in CRP (NPD) No.3056 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022,

wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court dealt with six instances as

pointed out by him.

5. The relevant portion of observation of this Court narrating six

instances dealt with by it is as follows:

23. From the instances that had arisen in these six

revisions, the different types of cases that may arise before

the Rent Court can be broadly classified as follows:

i. Written tenancy created prior to and expired prior

to the commencement of the Act (Tenant holding over under

an oral tenancy);

ii. Oral tenancies created prior to the New Act and no

written agreement into;

iii. Written tenancies created prior to the New Act and

the period expired after the commencement of the Act;

iv. Written tenancies created after the commencement

of the New Act and had presently expired (either registered

or unregistered)

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2901 of 2022

v. Oral tenancies created after the New Act.

6. In the present case, the tenancy agreement was entered on

30.01.2019 and the same is still in operation as the tenancy period is for five

years. Therefore, none of the contingency dealt within the said decision will

apply to the case on hand. Therefore, the said decision may not be applicable

to the present case on hand.

7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent

Court is set aside and the Rent Court is directed to number the petition filed