Advocates:
['P B RAMANUJAM', '', 'SUBHIKSHA', 'P B BALAJI']

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3317 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3317 of 2019

V.Manimegalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

Selvaraj Kannan

... Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

praying to set aside order dated 09.09.2019 passed in

RLTOP.SR.No.55813 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Court at Chennai

and consequently direct the Court below to dispose of the said RLTOP

SR.No.55813 of 2019 on merits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.B.Balaji

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed against the docket order

passed by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Chennai, by order

dated 09.09.2019, whereby RLTOP.SR.No.55813 of 2919 was returned

by stating the reason that, the petition was not maintainable, as there

has been no registered rental agreement between the landlord and the

tenant in respect of the property, which is the subject matter in the

said Rent Control Proceedings, as against which, the present revision

has been filed.

1/9

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3317 of 2019

2.I have heard Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner, who has submitted that, admittedly there has been

no registered rental agreement between the revision petitioner and the

respondent, nevertheless that would not make an absolute bar for

entertaining an application under Section 21(2) of the Act filed by the

revision petitioner who is the landlord.

3.In this context, the learned counsel has brought to the notice

of this Court about the provision of Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu

Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,

2017 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') which reads thus:

"4-A. Effect of non-registration.- No document required to

be registered under sub-section (3) of Section 4 shall,

unless it has been registered, -

(a) affect any immovable property comprised

therein, or

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

(c) be received in evidence of any transaction

affecting such property or conferring any right.]"

4.The learned counsel, by relying upon the said Section, has

specifically referred to sub-section (c) of Section 4-A and submit that,

if at all the unregistered rental agreement does not have any

evidentiary value within the meaning of sub-section (c) of Section 4-A,

2/9

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3317 of 2019

that would not create an absolute bar in approaching the Rent Court

by either party under the provisions of the Act to seek for remedy.

5.Herein the case in hand, according to him, the revision

petitioner is the landlord who filed the said Application

(RLTOP.SR.No.55813 of 2019) for eviction against the respondent on

the ground of default of rent and also on the ground of owner's

occupation. But, on those grounds, whether the revision petitioner/

landlord is entitled to get the relief from the Rent Court is a matter to

be decided on merits, for which, evidence have to be let in only by the

revision petitioner/landlord and based on such evidence, the decision

would be made by the Rent Court.

6.He would further submit that, merely because there has been

no registered rental agreement within the meaning of Section 4 of the

said Act, it cannot be said that, the very Rent Court Proceedings

(Application) itself is vitiated or the provisions of the said Act cannot

be invoked by the landlord or tenant on the ground of non-availability

of registered rental agreement.

3/9

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3317 of 2019

7.I have considered the said submission made by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and I have also gone through the

aforesaid provisions of the new Act specifically Section 4-A and that,

more particularly sub-section (c) of Section 4-A.

8.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner,