C.R.P.No.3762 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.3762 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.19840 of 2022

Mrs.M.Jayashree

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.A.Asif Basha

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil

Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decretal order in RLTA No.58 of

2021 dated 08.07.2022 passed by the VII Additional District Judge

confirming the order of RLTOP No.459 of 2020 dated 28.10.2021 before

the X Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mrs.M.Jayashree

[Party-in-Person]

For Respondent

: Mr.P.B.Balaji

Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3762 of 2022

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order and

decretal order passed in RLTA No.58 of 2021 dated 08.07.2022 confirming

the order and decretal order passed in RLTOP No.459 of 2020 dated

28.10.2021.

2. The revision petitioner states that she is living in the Subject

Property for the past about 5½ years along with her mother Smt.Jegajothi,

son Yugender and daughter Thirisha. The respondent is the owner of the

Subject Property.

3. The revision petitioner states that the respondent is an Advocate

and enquired about the revision petitioner's family that she is a divorcee

doing financial business. From and out of the said income she is running the

family. The mother of the revision petitioner is working in Registration

Office and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.

4. The revision petitioner states that she had given old currency notes

before Demonetisation, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twently

Page 2 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3762 of 2022

Lakhs) and accordingly, entered into a lease agreement for 5 years, in

respect of the Subject Property. The respondent agreed to repay the said

amount by way of new currency. On 09.09.2017, the respondent leased out

his entire premises to the revision petitioner after taking the old currency

notes amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- from her.

5. The revision petitioner has narrated certain incidents occurred

between the revision petitioner / tenant and the respondent / landlord. Those

occurrences were based on certain oral transactions, which were considered

by the Rent Court and the Appellate Court.

6. The Rent Court considered all such facts as narrated by the revision

petitioner and found that there is no written tenancy agreement between the

landlord and the tenant as per Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of

Right and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (here in

after referred as 'the TNRRRLT Act'). The ingredients for granting relief

under Section 21(2)(a) failure to enter into a written agreement under

Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act are clearly made out and accordingly,

the petition for eviction filed by the landlord was allowed.

Page 3 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3762 of 2022

7. The petition filed by the respondent / landlord was allowed, under

Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an

Appeal in RLTA No.58 of 2021. The Appellate Court considered the facts,

circumstances and evidences. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner

before the Appellate Court were the Rent Court has failed to examine the

oral and documentary evidences of the revision petitioner. The respondent

inducted the revision petitioner as a tenant during the year 2017 before the

commencement of the new Act of the year 2017 and at the time of induction

of the revision petitioner as a tenant, the respondent received a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- as an advance, but not issued any receipt to the revision

petitioner. The default in payment of rent was also refused. It is contended

that the respondent / landlord never come forward to execute a rent

agreement with the revision