Absence of written rent agreement justifies eviction under Section 21(2)(a); new pleas barred in appeal/revision.

K.Angaiah ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and to set aside the fair and ex-order passed in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2023, dated 12.11.2025 on the file of the VI-Additional District Judge, (Rent Control Appellant Tribunal), Madurai confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2019 on the file of Rent Controller, Madurai Taluk, dated 07.02.2023 by way of allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.M.Ponniah

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Manoharan for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Ponniah for the respondent.

2. The tenant is the civil revision petitioner. The respondent is the landlord.

3. Alleging that the tenant is not paying the rents nor had entered into an agreement as required under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 , the landlord presented a petition for eviction. This petition was numbered as R.C.O.P.3 of 2019. Summons was served on the tenant. The tenant conceded the relationship of landlord and tenant and that a sum of Rs.20,000/- had been paid as advance and the monthly rent was Rs.5,000/-. The tenant alleged that month on month, she had been depositing the amounts into the account of the landlord through ATM. She alleged that the landlord had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly rent and as she did not accede to the unreasonable increase in monthly rents, the landlord, had filed the eviction petition.

4. She further alleged that after taking possession of the property, she had spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-to have the buildings repaired. On a legal issue, she pleaded that the landlord had not issued any statutory notice, prior to the filing of the eviction petition.

5. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred to the file of the VI-Additional District Judge at Madurai in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2023. The learned VI-Additional District Judge cum Rent Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 12.11.2025. Hence, this revision.

6. I heard Mr.S.Manoharan for the civil revision petitioner.

7. Mr.S.Manoharan urged that the relationship of landlord and tenant snapped on the day the tenant and landlord entered into an agreement of sale on 12.03.2016. He referred to Exhibit A3, in order to substantiate the said plea. According to him, when the relationship of landlord and tenant has been terminated due to the sale agreement, the landlord is not entitled to maintain the RLTOP.

8. Mr.M.Ponnaiah is on caveat. He states that an execution petition has been filed pursuant to the order of eviction being confirmed by the appellate authority in E.P.No.11 of 2023 and delivery has also been ordered.

9. I have considered the submissions of Mr.S.Manoharan and have gone through the records.

10. A perusal of the counter filed by the tenant shows that she had never disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the contra, she had admitted to the relationship and had pleaded that it was on account of the unreasonable attitude of the landlord demanding an unconscionable rent, the R.C.O.P came to be presented.

11. A plea on such a vital issue, not taken before the Rent Controller cannot be raised either in appeal or in the revision. A perusal of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) indicates that the principles of natural justice would have to be complied with throughout the proceedings. To press home a point or a plea which had not been specifically pleaded, even faintly, would obviously take the landlord by surprise. It is not a cinematic trial for a party to raise a plea which had never been raised earlier. When th