PRAYER:

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.08.2025, passed in R.L.T.A.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2021 on the file of the I-Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, dated 20.06.2024 and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

O R D E R

Heard Mr.P.Rajalingam for the Civil Revision Petitioner.

2. The tenant is the Civil Revision Petitioner. The tenant was put in possession of the demised premises by one Sundar Rajan. The said Sundar Rajan passed away. Thereafter, his family members entered into a family arrangement whereby the demised premises was allotted in favour of one Sukumar.

3. The said Sukumar alleged that the tenant had not paid the monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- for several years and approached the Rent Court invoking Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), and 21(2)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TNRRRLT Act”). He alleged that the tenancy agreement between Sundar Rajan and the tenant was oral and that no fresh agreement had been entered into between Sukumar, the legal heir, and the tenant, after the TNRRLT Act, 2017 coming into force. It was further pleaded that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition, and that it was not possible to repair the building or put up a new construction without evicting the tenant. This petition was taken on file as R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2021.

4. Summons were served on the tenant. The tenant contended that there were six tenements in the demised premises and that the she was in occupation of one such tenement. She further pointed out that she was not aware of the allotment of the property in favour of the landlord under the family arrangement. She conceded that the landlord had issued a notice on 09.11.2021 and that she had immediately sent a reply on 12.12.2021. She urged that it was only upon the receipt of the lawyer’s notice issued by the landlord that she came to know that he was the landlord. She denied that there was any wilful default, stating that the landlord’s father, Sundar Rajan, had received rents till December 2017. In addition, she pleaded that in the earlier proceedings between Sundar Rajan and the tenant's mother in R.C.O.P.No.152 of 1994, fair rent had been fixed for the premises at Rs.300/- and, consequently, the landlord is stopped from claiming the monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-.

5. She also took a curious plea that Sundar Rajan had informed the tenant that she need not pay the rents and that, once the family arrangement was concluded, the person to whom the property was allotted would call upon the tenant to pay the rents and thereafter she could remit the same to him. On this plea, she denied wilful default. She further stated that the building was as sturdy as any building could be and that it did not require demolition and reconstruction.

6. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. The landlord, Sukumar, entered the witness box as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. The tenant, Jacqueline, entered the witness box and marked Exhibits R1 to R3.

7. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the petition deserved to be allowed under Section 21(2)(a), as there was no agreement between the landlord and tenant as required under Section 4 of the Act.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.21 of 2024. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that, since there was no agreement, the judgment of this Court in Devaraj Jain v. Shafak Hameed Thaika and others, (2022) 1 Mad LJ 315 applied to the facts of the case and consequently dismissed the appeal.

9. During the course of the judgment, the learned Appellate Authority gave a specific f