Madras High Court
Mrs.Palkani vs Mr.J.Raghu on 9 January, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.(NPD) No.4500 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD) No.4500 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.25104 of 2024
Mrs.Palkani ... Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent
-vs-
1. Mr.J.Raghu
2. Mr.J.Jaikumar ... Respondents/Respondents/Applicants
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the dismisal order dated 28.06.2024 passed in
R.L.T.A.No.111 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court at
Chennai, confirming the order of Rent Court passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.63 of
2020 on the file of XII Small Causes Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sunil
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manohar
*****
ORDER
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Court as well
as the Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been filed.
Background of the case in nutshell:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The revision petitioner is a Tenant under the respondents,
who are Landlords and an eviction petition was filed by the Landlords under
Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d) and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,
2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017'). According to the Landlords, they purchased
the property on 05.10.2016 and since then, they are the absolute owners of
the premises. They issued a legal notice on 07.09.2019, calling upon the
tenants to pay the arrears of rent at Rs.1,100/- per month from October,
2016 till date. A reply dated 30.09.2019 was sent by the Tenant, agreeing to
pay the arrears of rent and wanted to register the agreement of tenancy, for
which a rejoinder dated 14.10.2019 was also sent by the Landlords,
followed by yet another reply dated 18.11.2019, enclosing a draft agreement
of tenancy, as demanded in the notices issued by the Tenant. However, the
Tenant had not come forward to execute the agreement and therefore,
eviction was sought under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, 2017 and also on the
ground of additional accommodation.
3. In the counter filed before the Court below, a contention was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
raised by the Tenant that she was originally inducted as a Tenant by one
Krishnaiah in respect of the portion in the ground floor of the petition
premises for non residential purposes and the rear portion for residential
purposes. Ever since the inception of tenancy, the Tenant has been paying
monthly rents without fail. According to the Tenant, she had been originally
paying the rent to the owner of the premies through Power Agent of the
owners and as the owner had refused to receive the monthly rent, the Tenant
had filed R.C.O.P.No.613 of 2010 and her husband also filed
R.C.O.P.No.614 of 2010 for deposit of monthly rents into Court and the
same was allowed by an order dated 05.04.2011 by XI Court of Small
Causes. By the said order, the Tenant was directed to deposit monthly rents
at the rate of Rs.1,100/- from January, 2010.
4. It was further stated in the counter that on 07.09.2019, the
Landlords / present owners of the property called upon the Tenant to enter
into an agreement, besides paying the monthly rent from October, 2016 to
July, 2019, for which, the Tenant also sent a reply, expressing her
willingness to enter into an agreement upon production of the conclusive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proof of ownership. On receipt of the notice, the Landlords sent a reply on
14.10.2019, from which, the Tenant came to know that the property had
been purchased on 05.10.2016 and thereafter, a reply to the rejoinder dated
25.10.2019 was sent by the Tenant, expressing her inclination to enter into a
lease agreement duly pointing out that she had deposited monthly rents into
Court from October, 2016. However, the Landlords, without taking into
considertion the Court deposit, insisted the Landlord to pay rents from
October, 2016 and a draft agreement was purported to be enclosed.
5. It is the contention of the Tenant that though she had
received notices from the Landlords, there was no copy of the draft
agreement enclosed. When the matter stood thus, the Landlords immediately
filed the petition for recovery of possession on 19.12.2019 and hence
opposed the petition for eviction.
6. The Rent Court had allowed the application on the ground of
non execution of agreement after the Act, 2017 came into force and rejected
the petition for eviction on other grounds. The Appellate Court has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
confirmed the order of the Rent Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Tenant is
before this Court.
7. Though various grounds have been raised in the present
petition, the main ground urged by the Tenant is that the petition filed for
eviction is highly premature, as the petition had been filed before the expiry
of 575 days to enter into an agreement and therefore, the petition is not
maintainable. According to the Tenant / revision petitioner herein, she had
all along shown her willingness to enter into an agreement and the
Landlords, without giving sufficient time as mandated under law, had filed
the petition for eviction, which is against the provisions of law. Much
reliance has been placed on the orders of this Court in Ramesh Salunkhe
vs. Pramila Jain (C.R.P.No.1996 of 2021) decided on 25.01.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the Landlords / respondents herein
contended that though the Tenant had stated that she is ready to enter into
an agreement, subject to proof of ownership, she had not come forward to
execute any agreement and thereafter, once again notices had been served
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the Tenant on 14.10.2019, requesting her to enter into an agreement,
besides paying the arrears of rent from 05.10.2016, for which, a reply was
sent by the Tenant on 25.10.2019 accepting to continue the tenancy and was
willing to execute the agreement on the existing terms. Though the Landlors
send a draft agreement, having received the same, the Tenant had not come
to complete the formalities, which necessitated the Landlors to file a
petition for eviction.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that
the time period of 575 days provided under Section 4(2) of the Act, 2017 is
only to inform the parties to enter into an agreement and the Act, 2017 does
not contemplate that the petition cannot be filed before expiry of 575 days.
If the Tenant was really interested in continuing the tenancy, she ought to
have entered into an agreement, when the legal notice had served on
07.09.2019 and there was no whisper on the side of the Tenant in respect
thereof in the reply notices dated 30.09.2019 and 18.11.2019. However, the
Tenant was interested to enter into an agreement only on the existing terms,
i.e., old rent that cannot be permissible.
10. Learned counsel for the Landlords also contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rent payable under the New Act, 2017 is only as per the agreement agreed
upon between the Landlords and the Tenant and in support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the
cases of B.A.Chandrashekara Setty vs. Sucharita Gunasekaran
(C.R.P.No.1238 of 2022) decided on 10.08.2022.
11. I have perused the material documents available on record.
12. At the first instance, there is no dispute with regard to the
landlords and tenant relationship. The revision petitioner was originally
inducted as a Tenant even before 1988 and the Landlords purchased the
property in 2016. The Tenant had filed R.C.O.P.No.613 of 2010 and her
husband also filed R.C.O.P.No.614 of 2010 for deposit of monthly rents
into Court as against the erstwhile Landlords and a direction was issued by
XI Court of Small Causes on 05.04.2011 to deposit monthly rents at the rate
of Rs.1,100/- from January, 2010. After purchase of the property, the
Landlords issued notices for payment of rent from 2016. Besides, the
Landlords also requested the Tenant to enter into an agreement. A reply had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been sent by the Tenant on 07.09.2019, stating that she had already
deposited the amount and the Landlords can withdraw the amont, apart from
stating that she is ready to enter into an agreement, subject to proof of
ownership. Thereafter, the Landlords issued notice on 14.10.2019,
indicating the purchase of the property by way of Doc.No.4113 of 2016 on
the file of SRO, Kodambakkam, Chennai, which has been replied by the
Tenant on 25.10.2019, intimating that she is willing to continue the tenancy
on the existing terms. For that, the Landlords also sent a reply dated
18.11.2019 along with a draft agreement of tenancy.
13. Though it is stated by the Tenant in the counter that no
copy of the draft agreement had been enclosed in the said letter, the fact
remains that the Tenant expressed her willingness to execute the agreement
only on the existing terms. It is relevant to note that the main object of the
Act, 2017 is to regulate the rent as per the terms agreed between the
Landlord and Tenant. Therefore, an agreement is mandatory to claim rights
under this Act and in order to avail the benefit under the Act, Section 4
makes it clear that even in respect of the existing tenancy when there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agreement entered between the parties, the parties were required to enter an
agreement in writing within a period of 575 days from the date of
commencement of Act, i.e., 22.02.2019. Proviso to sub-section (2) to
Section 4 of the New Act makes it clear that irrespective of the failure on
the part of the tenant or the landlord in entering an agreement, the same will
give right to either the landlord or the tenant to apply for termination of the
tenancy under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the new Act. In
other words, the above proviso makes it clear that non entering of
agreement in writing, even on the mistake of both sides, will give rise to
cause of action to the landlord for eviction under Section 21 of the New Act.
14. As far as the submission raised by the learned counsel for
the Tenant that the petition filed within a period of 575 days from the
commencement of the New Act is premature petition, this Court is of the
view that originally, when the New Act came into force, 90 days time was
given and thereafter, it was enhanced to 210 days and thereafter, on
15.02.2020, it was further enhanced to 575 days with effect from
20.09.2019. Merely because the period has been extended to 575 days, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
does not mean that the Landlords should wait till expiry of 575 days to enter
into an agreement. The intention of the legislation can be gathered from the
subsequent provisions introduced under the New Act. Section 8 of the New
Act defines the rent payable, which reads as follows:
“8. Rent payable - The rent payable in relation to a
premises shall be,
(a) in case of new tenancies entered into after the
commencement of this Act, the rent agreed to between the
landlord and the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy;
(b) in case of tenancies entered into before the
commencement of this Act, where no agreement was executed
between the parties, the rent agreed to between the landlord and
the tenant in the agreement executed between them under sub-
section (2) of section 4;
(c) in case of tenancies entered into before the
commencement of the Act, where an agreement in writing was
already entered into, the rent agreed to between the landlord
and the tenant in such agreement.?”
15. Clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act makes it clear that even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in respect of the earlier tenancy, where no written agreement was executed
between the parties, the rent payable would be the rent that is agreed upon
between the landlord and the tenant in such agreement which is to be duly
executed as required under sub-section (2) of section 4. The above
mandatory provision requires the parties to enter an agreement in writing
only in order to to regulate the rent as per the terms of the parties and not
based on old rent. If at all, the intention of the legislation was only to enter
an agreement with regard to the existing rent alone, Section 8 (b) would not
have been brought under the statute to define what is the rent payable even
in respect of the old tenancy.
16. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in (2005) 4
SCC 315 held as follows:
“21. Where the right to sue has not matured on the date of
the institution of the suit an objection in that regard must be
promptly taken by the defendant. The court may reject the
plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action. It may dismiss
the suit with liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on its
maturity. The plaintiff may himself withdraw the suit at that
stage and such withdrawal would not come in the way of the
plaintiff in filing the suit on its maturity. In either case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff would not be prejudiced. On the other hand, if the
defendant by his inaction amounting to acquiescence or waiver
allows the suit to proceed ahead then he cannot be permitted to
belatedly urge such a plea as that would cause hardship, maybe
irreparable prejudice, to the plaintiff because of lapse of time.
If the suit proceeds ahead and at a much later stage the court is
called upon to decide the plea as to non-maintainability of the
suit on account of its being premature, then the court shall not
necessarily dismiss the suit. The court would examine if any
prejudice has been caused to the defendant or any manifest
injustice would result to the defendant if the suit is to be
decreed. The court would also examine if in the facts and
circumstances of the case it is necessary to drive the plaintiff to
the need of filing a fresh suit or grant a decree in the same suit
inasmuch as it would not make any real difference at that stage
if the suit would have to be filed again on its having matured
for filing.”
17. The Landlords, immediately after purchase of the property,
intimated the Tenant about their purchase and also demanded the arrears of
rent as per the Act, 2017. If really the Tenant had the intention to continue
the tenancy to enter into an agreement, agreeing to pay the rent as agreed
between the parties, it can be said that despite readiness on the part of the
Tenant, the Landlords failed to enter into an agreement, whereas the Tenant,
though expressed her intention to enter into an agreement with a caveat, was
ready to enter into an agreement only on the existing terms and not on new
terms. The reply sent by the Tenant on 25.10.2019 that was placed before
this Court indicates that the Tenant was ready to enter into an agreement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only on the existing terms.
18. As already pointed out, the main object of the Act, 2017 is
to regulate the rent as per the terms agreed between the Landlord and
Tenant. Merely expressing some intention for entering into an agreement, it
cannot be said that the Tenant is really interested to enter into an agreement
as per the market value. It is to be noted that even though a draft agreement
along with notice dated 18.11.2019 was sent by the Landlords, a plea was
taken by the Tenant that no such draft copy was received. Even assuming
that there was no such copy attached along with the notice, the Tenant ought
to have sent a reply, indicating the acceptance of the draft agreement on her
side, which had not been done. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
merely because a time period has been stipulated for the parties to enter into
an agreement within 575 days, that cannot be construed to mean that the
Landlords should wait till 575 days. Tenant cannot expect the Landlords to
wait for 575 days to enable the Tenant to express her position in this regard.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Tenant that the
petition for eviction had been filed before expiry of 575 days is premature
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be countenanced. Even assuming that the petition had been filed at
the premature level, that cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition.
19. If really the Tenant was interested in executing the
agreement, she could have very well made an attempt even during pendency
of the petition. Whereas her reply dated 25.10.2019 indicates that she had
expressed her willingness to enter into an agreement on the existing terms
and not on the rent agreeable between the parties on terms. The case relied
upon by the Tenant in the case of Ramesh Salunkhe vs. Pramila Jain
(C.R.P.No.1996 of 2021) decided on 25.01.2022 will not be applicable to
the facts of the case. In the above case, the Tenant was ready to enter into an
agreement, whereas the Landlord did not want to extend the lease agreement
and in that situation, this Court held that the petition is not maintainable,
which is not the case herein.
20. Insofar as the plea of premature is concerned, as already
stated above, no attempt was made by the Tenant during pendency of the
petition and the time period stipulated is only for the purpose of entering
into an agreement within the said period and it does not mean that the
Landlords should compulsorily wait till 575 days to file a petition for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
eviction. In that case, the very object of the legislation will be diluted. The
Tenant cannot take advantage of her own fault. The revision petitioner was
inducted as a Tenant in the year 1988 and previously, she had also filed
R.C.O.P.Nos.613 and 614 of 2010 along with her husband for deposit of the
rent as against erstwhile Landlords. The very conduct of the Tenant
unravels fact that she somehow wanted to take advantage of the situation. In
such view of the matter, the contention raised by the Tenant that the petition
was premature, has no legs to stand and is liable to be rejected.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed and the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Rent
Appellate Tribunal are upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.01.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.,
ar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. II Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2. XII Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
