Civil Revision under Article 227 not maintainable for clarification of prior judgment; pursue Rent Control Appeal.

Order

(1) Today, the matter is listed before this Court for deciding the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition.

(2) The petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court in Muruganandham Vs. Joseph, wherein this Court held that RLTOP lies against a tenant although the tenancy agreement remains unregistered under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘’TNRRRLT Act, 2017’’]. According to the petitioner, in the very same judgment, the flow chart shows that the remedy was only before the Civil court and not under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The petitioner stated that in view of the aforesaid contradiction, the Trial Courts in Chennai, were rendering contradictory judgments and hence, the above Civil Revision Petition.

(3) The Registry entertained a doubt on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, and therefore, it is posted before this Court under the caption ‘’For Maintainability’’.

(4) The petitioner, as a landlord, filed RLTOP No.497/2025, under Section

21[2][b] read with Section 23 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017, for eviction. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court, on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for the relief under Section 21[2][b] of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The petitioner, under the circumstances filed the above revision petition, seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court in Muruganandham Vs. Joseph.

(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while eliciting the various kinds of cases that may arise for rent control, the learned Judge, in paragraph No.13 of the common order dated 04.02.2022, classified them into six types and the petitioner’s case fall under category [v], i.e., written tenancies created after the commencement of the New Act and had presently expired [either registered or unregistered]. While considering the 5^th category of cases, relating to the agreements which have been entered into after the commencement of the New Act and expired at the time of presentation of eviction petition, the learned Judge, paragraph No.23, found that three possible situations could arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner falls under the category [ii] therein, i.e., the landlord demanding possession within the period of six months during which the tenancy is deemed to continue’’. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge, while considering the petitioner’s category in paragraph No.23[ii], held that if the landlord remains with the vacant possession within the extended period of six months, then the landlord is entitled to initiate eviction available under the provisions of Section 21[2] of the Act, except clause [a] to sub-section [2] of Section 21 of the Act.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge, however contradicted himself by framing a flow chart. In the Flow Chart, it was held that for unregistered Eviction Agreements, the TNRRRLT Act will not apply and the landlord had to approach the Civil Court. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this contradiction creates confusion and the Rent Control Courts, are passing contradictory judgments.

(7) This Court finds that clarification sought for by the petitioner at this stage is not necessary. The Appellate Court can very well consider the judgment and based on its own interpretation, it can render judgment. As rightly pointed out by the Registry, the petitioner cannot maintain this Civil Revision Petition at this stage and the remedy available to the petitioner is only to approach the Appellate