The court upheld the eviction order based on the absence of a formal landlord-tenant agreement and deemed the tenant's claims unsubstantiated by evidence, confirming the decision of lower courts.

ORDER

The petitioner/tenant, who has suffered concurrently before the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal is the petitioner herein.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.T.N.Rangesh Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

3. Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would at the outset state that without even establishing a landlord-tenant relationship, the respondent has invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, Act 42 of 2017 (in short 'TNRRRLT Act') and sought for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner was a lessee under one Radhabai and the petitioner had in fact parted with a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as the lease amount, with no obligation to pay monthly rents. It is therefore the submission of Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel that the daughter of the said Radhabai, after her demise had sold the property to the respondent, without even mentioning in the sale deed, recognizing the possession and the right of the petitioner to recover Rs.15,00,000/-. The invocation of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act itself was impermissible and improper. He would further state that the petitioner has always been ready to enter into a rental agreement with the respondent and it was only the respondent who failed to come forward to renew the rental agreement. Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel would also rely on Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and state that in the absence of a proper attornment of the lease in favor of the respondent, the respondent cannot evict the petitioner by summary proceedings, invoking the TNRRRLT Act.

4. Per contra, Mr.Rangesh Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent would state that neither Radhabai nor the vendor of the respondent have admitted to the alleged claim of the petitioner that he has paid Rs.15,00,000/- as lease amount, with no liability to pay monthly rents. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that law is now well settled with regard to the willingness of the tenant to enter into an agreement of tenancy as mandated under Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act and irrespective of the readiness and willingness of the tenant, if no agreement is clinched between the parties as required under Section 4(2), then the petitioner has to suffer the consequences of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent would therefore state that the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal have rightly allowed the eviction petition and directed possession to be handed over by the petitioner and the same does not warrant interference in revision.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The three grounds on which the eviction application was resisted were that, one the petitioner has no jural relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent and secondly, he has paid Rs.15,00,000/- as lease amount and unless the said money is refunded by the respondent who claims under the original vendor, Radha Bai, no eviction can be ordered and thirdly, when the petitioner has expressed his willingness to enter into a fresh tenancy agreement, the respondent could not have refused the said offer and taken undue advantage by approaching the Rent Court seeking eviction.

7. The case of the respondent as landlord was plain and simple. According to him, after the commencement of the new Act, the petitioner has not entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent as mandated under Section 4(2) of the Act and therefo