Madras High Court
D.Padmanabhan vs J.A.Nemichand on 6 August, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.3014 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.3014 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.16212 of 2024
D.Padmanabhan .. Petitioner
Vs.
J.A.Nemichand .. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order and decreetal order passed in M.P.No.2 of 2023
in R.L.T.O.P.No.102 of 2023 on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Chennai, dated 19.06.2024, dismissing the above application
is manifestly erroneous, unjust, illegal and contrary to the settled principles
of law, and the abovesaid M.P.No.2 of 2023 has to be allowed as not
maintainable.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by
the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in dismissing the
petition in M.P.No.2 of 2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.102 of 2023.
Page No 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. There is no dispute between the relationship between the parties.
The civil revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord.
3. The respondent/landlord invoked Section 21(2)(a) of The Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants
Act, 2017 [Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017], and presented a petition for
eviction.
4. On being served with the notice, the petitioner/tenant moved an
application in M.P.No.2 of 2023 pleading that the said petition is not
maintainable. The Rent Court dismissed the said petition, against which the
present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. Heard Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar, appearing on behalf of the civil
revision petitioner.
6. According to Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar, the RLTOP itself is not
Page No 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
maintainable on account of the following positions :
(1) the respondent/landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.991 of 2014
seeking eviction. He would state that the said RCOP was dismissed, against
which an appeal was preferred in R.C.A.No.657 of 2017 and as against the
said dismissal, a civil revision petition is pending in C.R.P.No.2790 of 2023.
He would state that since the proceeding initiated under the old act is
pending, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars the presentation of a
fresh petition under the new Act.
(2) Under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, prior to
taking possession of the property, the respondent/landlord will have to
return the advance amount that has been received by him from the tenant.
Since, in this particular case, the landlord has not returned the advance
amount, he is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition. Finally, he would
state that Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act is so one sided that the tenant has
no other option than to surrender possession, which he would state that is
unfair on the tenant.
Page No 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. I have carefully considered the arguments made by
Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar.
8. The submissions of Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar is that the landlord is not
permitted to proceed with eviction simultaneously under both the
legislations.
9. A careful perusal of the proviso attached to Section 47(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure would show that the petitioner within a period of
270 days, for the time Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 came into force, is
entitled to withdraw any suit or other proceeding with respect to the subject
matter of the present suit with liberty to file a fresh application under the
new Act.
10. According to Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar, in case, the withdrawal is not
done, the landlord cannot ride two horses at the same time, one under Tamil
Nadu Act 18 of 1960 and another under Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017. I am
unable to understand how the said provisions apply to the facts of this case.
Page No 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The landlord had filed RCOP.No.991 of 2014. The said RCOP was
dismissed. The landlord has not preferred an appeal. It was the tenant who
preferred RCA No.657 of 2017. As against the dismissal of RCA.No.657 of
2017, it was the tenant who preferred C.R.P.No.2790 of 2023. By no stretch
of imagination can a landlord withdrawn the revision that has been preferred
by the tenant. If the landlord were to attempt such a withdrawal, in fact, he
is opening himself to proceeded for perjury and for contempt. An adversary
party cannot withdraw the proceeding preferred by his opponent before this
Court or any other Court. Therefore, the argument under Section 47 of the
Code of Civil Procedure deserves rejection for a simple reason it is not the
landlord's revision before this Court, but the revision at the instance of the
tenant.
11. Insofar as the plea under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of
2017 is concerned, the Act declares that the landlord cannot retain the
advance amount once he takes possession of the property. But this Section
does not bar the landlord to file a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the
Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, which has been done by the landlord in the
Page No 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present case. In case, the landlord refuses to refund the advance amount,
then as per Section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, he is liable to
return the same together with interest as may be fixed by the Court from
time to time. Therefore, Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 is also
not a bar for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of
the said Act.
12. The last argument of Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar is that Section
21(2)(a) of the said Act is arbitrary, and it also need not detain me. The
constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 was put in test before
the Division Bench of this Court. The Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice and Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy has upheld the
constitutional validity. See, Balaji vs. Principal Secretary to the Government
& Others, W.P.No.3985 of 2020 etc., dated 23.04.2024. The validity having
been upheld, the Rent Court has to apply the law as it is.
13. Apart from that, interpreting Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu
Act 42 of 2017, Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian in the judgment of
Page No 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.Muruganandam vs J.Joseph [(2022) 1 LW 752 = Manu/TN/1366/2022]
has held that even if the landlord is unreasonable and refuses to enter into an
agreement with the tenant, by virtue of Section 4(2) read with Section
21(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, the tenant will have to vacate, if
there is no written agreement. That being the position of law consistently
declared by the Court, and all the pleas raised by Mr.A.C.Chandrasekar
failing, I have no reasons to admit the present revision.
14. The learned Rent Controller is requested to expedite the
proceeding and pass final orders in R.L.T.O.P.No.102 of 2023 within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.08.2024
mkn2
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Page No 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mkn2
To
The learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai
and
Page No 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
06.08.2024
Page No 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
