PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Return/Objections dated 24.07.2026 issued by the Registry of the Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.Sr.No.6486 of 2026 and consequently direct the Registry of the Court of Small Causes at Chennai to take on file and number the Application filed by the Petitioners in R.L.T.O.P.Sr.NO.6486 of 2026 and to deal with the same thereafter in accordance with law and pass such further and / or other orders as this Court.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Return Endorsement dated 24.07.2026 issued by the Registry of the Small Causes Court, Chennai in RLTOP Sr.No.6486 of 2026 and direct the Registry to number the application filed by the petitioners and to deal with the same in accordance with law.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record.

The petitioners filed the petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) for recovery of possession of the schedule premises. The petition was returned by the Registry as not maintainable on the ground that the Tenancy Agreement has not been registered and therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of the TNRRRLT Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

The issue that is involved in the present case is squarely covered by the latest order passed by this Court in CRP (MD) No.1357 of 2026, dated 12.06.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

12. Earlier, this Court was called upon to consider the very same issue as regards the registration qua the maintainability of an eviction petition under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act. This was in V.Ganesh Vs. S.Balaji, C.R.P.No.1891 of 2025. The Hon'ble Ms.Justice P.T.Asha rendered the following judgment on 29.04.2025. The learned Judge has held as follows:

“8. In the first instance, it is the admitted case of both the parties that the last of the renewal of the tenancy agreement was on 29.10.2012 and thereafter, despite the request of the landlord, the tenant had not come forward to execute the tenancy agreement. Therefore, on considering the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.3056 of 2021, etc. batch, it is clear that the present case would clearly fall within the class of cases at serial no.1 i.e. prior to the commencement of the Act tenancy agreement had been created and the same had expired. Therefore, the possession of the tenant is that of a tenant holding over under an oral tenancy. The learned Judge has clearly observed that in such cases, the tenant is liable to be evicted, as there is no written agreement.”

13. This view of the learned Judge was put to challenge before the Supreme Court in V.Ganesh Vs. S.Balaji, S.L.P.(C).Nos.17295 to 17296 of 2025. Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ, vide order dated 04.07.2025, held as follows:

“Having regard to the averment in landlord's petition that last rent agreement was dated 29.10.2012, we do not find any merit in the objection as to the maintainability of landlord's petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

14. This is not a single line order of the SLP, which normally would not operate as a precedent on the point. The Supreme Court was specifically called upon to address whether the view laid down by this Court in V.Ganesh’s case, C.R.P.No.1891 of 2025, holding that in the absence of the written agreement as required under Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act, an eviction petition under Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act is maintainable, is correct or not. The Supreme Court confirmed the said view and held