The absence of a tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant rendered the eviction proceedings valid under the TNRRRLT Act.

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3. The landlord filed R.L.T.O.P.No.1 of 2020 invoking Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act of 2017, (hereinafter referred to as TNRRRLT Act) before the District Munsif cum Rent Court, Madurai Taluk. She invoked Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.

4. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant has to pay a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. The tenancy was for residential purposes. She alleged that the tenant had paid rents till November 2019 and defaulted in payment of rents thereafter. She sent a notice to the tenant on 16.12.2019. The tenant received the notice but did not respond to the same. The tenant, instead, filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2019 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the landlord from dispossessing her except by due process of law. Urging that no agreement had been entered into between the landlord and tenant, as required under Section 4(1) of the TNRRRLT Act, the landlord sought eviction.

5. The tenant was served with summons. She filed a counter.

The relationship between the landlord and tenant was admitted. The tenant had pleaded that there was no default and that, the tenant had been paying rents as and when they were due without any default.

6. The learned Rent Court, took up the application for disposal, finding that there was no agreement between the landlord and tenant as required under Section 4(2) it ordered eviction on 25.07.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.L.T.A.No. 15 of 2023. That proceeding too met with the same fate. Pending the RLTA, the tenant filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 to receive additional documents. That application too was dismissed while dismissing the main R.L.T.A on 28.02.2025. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the present revision.

7. I heard Mr.N.Mariappan for the Civil Revision Petitioner/tenant and Mr.K.Sudalayandi for the Respondent/landlord.

8. Mr.N.Mariappan urged that the R.L.T.O.P itself is not maintainable, since under Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act, a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the Act, is given to the landlord and tenant to enter into a tenancy agreement in respect of an existing tenancy, when an agreement was not entered into earlier. He points out that Section 4(2) was amended vide Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 3 of 2020 with effect from 20.09.2019 granting time to the landlord and tenant till May, 2021 to enter into an agreement. However, the R.L.T.O.P itself was filed in January 2020. In fine, the plea of Mr.N.Mariappan is that, on the date on which the petition was presented, the R.L.T.O.P was premature. Hence, eviction ought not to have been granted. He states that this aspect had not been properly construed by the Courts below and hence their findings are perverse and require interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Mr.K.Sudalayandi points out that admittedly between the landlord and tenant, there is no agreement either in 2019 or as of today. He states that the building is losing its utility value day by day as the tenant is not maintaining the same in a proper manner. He further states that the landlord is a near senior citizen and would like to see the end of the litigation at least during her lifetime. He pleads that the revision is based on false grounds and hence, the same may be dismissed and the eviction order be confirmed.

10. I have carefully consi