Madras High Court
M.Narayanaswamy vs K.Rajeswari (Deceased) on 1 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.2502 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2502 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.14330 of 2025
M.Narayanaswamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.Rajeswari (deceased)
1.K.Palani Kumar
2.K.Mani
3.K.Balaji
4.T.Meenakshi ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.11.2024 passed in
R.L.T.A.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai, confirming the fair and decretal order of the Rent Court, dated
27.02.2023, passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.576 of 2022 on the file of the X Court
of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.K.P.Ashok
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
C.R.P.No.2502 of 2025
ORDER
Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below ordering
eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to
as “the TNRRRLT Act” or “the new Act”), the present revision has been
filed by the tenant.
2.Brief background of the case is as follows :
2.1.The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents/landlords in
respect of the subject property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- per month.
The respondents/landlords originally filed an application in
R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as “the old
Act”) for eviction on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction. The
said petition has been withdrawn by the landlords on 19.04.2022 and they
filed an application in R.L.T.O.P.No.576 of 2022 on the file of the X Court
of Small Causes, Chennai, under the new Act, seeking eviction under
Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into a written agreement and Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
21(2)(e) for demolition and reconstruction.
2.2.It is the contention of the tenant before the Rent Court that the
landlord cannot invoke Section 21(2)(a) of the new TNRRRLT Act, since
R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was originally pending under the old Act. The
said R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was withdrawn by the landlords after expiry
of the mandatory period of 575 days to enter into an agreement. It was
further stated that, since the landlords could not establish their case under
the ground of demolition and reconstruction, they have added Section
21(2)(a) as a ground for eviction under the new Act. Hence, the tenant
opposed the application.
2.3.Though eviction was sought on two grounds, namely, for non-
entering into an agreement and for demolition and reconstruction, the Rent
Court, by order dated 27.02.2023, ordered eviction under Section 21(2)(a)
for non-entering into an agreement and dismissed the application qua
Section 21(2)(e) for demolition and reconstruction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
2.4.The tenant filed an appeal before the XIX Additional City Civil
Court, in R.L.T.A.No.134 of 2023. The Rent Appellate Court has also
confirmed the order of the Rent Court ordering eviction under Section
21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, for non-entering into an agreement.
2.5.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
present revision has been filed by the tenant.
3.Though various grounds have been raised, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant confined his submissions with
regard to the legal position, particularly with regard to Section 47 (Repeal
and Savings clause) in the new Act. The learned counsel mainly would
submit that, as per Section 47 of the TNRRRLT Act, any previous
proceedings initiated under the old Act ought to have been withdrawn
within a period of 270 days and an application under the new Act ought to
have been filed within a period of 360 days from the commencement of the
new Act. Whereas, R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 2008 was withdrawn only on
19.04.2022. According to the learned counsel, the time period of 270 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
provided under Sub-Clause (2) of Section 47 expired as early as on
19.11.2019. Therefore, it is his contention that the landlords are not entitled
to invoke the new Act for eviction of the tenant.
4.Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords would
submit that eviction is not sought on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction alone. According to him when the legislation has provided a
new ground for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into an
agreement, the landlord is entitled to invoke such provision. What is
relevant is the pendency of the suit or proceedings initiated under the old
Act which is alone a bar to a fresh application under the new Act.
Therefore, it is his contention that, if the contention of the revision
petitioner is accepted, it will defeat the very object of the Act itself.
5.In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for
consideration is whether the eviction petition initiated after the withdrawal
of the earlier application, beyond the period stipulated in proviso under
Section 47(2) of TNRRRLT Act is maintainable ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
Point :
6.Before delving into the issue, it is relevant to discuss the object of
the new Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of
Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The very object of the TNRRRLT Act
which came into force in 2017, is to regulate the rent between the landlord
and the tenant as per the terms agreed between the parties. Only to achieve
such terms to be entered into between the parties, Section 4 of the Act made
it mandatory that, even in respect of the existing tenancy, when there is no
agreement entered into between the parties, the parties are required to enter
into an agreement in writing within a period of 575 days from the date of
commencement of the Act, i.e., 22.02.2019. Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of
Section 4 of the new Act makes it very clear that, irrespective of the failure
on the part of the tenant or the landlord in entering into the 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
7.In other words, the above makes it clear that, non-entering into an
agreement in writing even on the mistake on either side will give rise to a
cause of action for the landlord to seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of
the new Act. This Court, in the case of S.Muruganandam v. J.Joseph
reported in 2022 (2) CTC 291 (Mad), has held as follows :
“9.It gives the right to the landlord to sue for
repossession dehors the fact that the landlord may be at fault
and he may be the reason for non-renewal or failure to enter
into an agreement in writing. It is not open to a tenant to
contend that despite his request, the landlord did not execute
an agreement in writing and therefore, the landlord cannot
invoke Section 21(2)(a) seeking repossession. This anomaly
or the deficiency throws up several new challenges, before the
Rent Courts. Various situations emerge under which the Rent
Court has to consider the effect of absence of an agreement in
writing.
10.The Scheme of the New Act requires tenancies to be
in writing or to be converted into writing and in both cases to
be registered as specified under the Act. Under the scheme of
the Act, the tenancies can be split into two kinds, one the
tenancies that were created prior to the enactment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
tenancies that were created after the enactment. As far as
the tenancies that were created after the enactment, the
parties have no other choice but to enter into a written
agreement and have it registered as provided under the Act.
As regards the tenancies which has been entered into prior to
the enactment, the parties are required to reduce the terms of
the tenancy into writing and have it registered or if the
tenancy is in writing to have it registered under the new Act.
Therefore, the Act in effect does away with oral tenancy.”
8.Therefore, the provisions of Section 4 of the new Act and the
judgment of this Court referred supra make it clear that, in respect of the
tenancy, the parties are required to enter into an agreement. Failure to enter
into such agreement, even on the mistake on either side, is also one of the
grounds for evicting the tenant.
9.It is relevant to note that the landlord and the tenant are bound by
the new Act, wherein, Section 4(2) directs the parties to enter into an
agreement in writing with regard to the tenancy within a period of 575 days
from the date of commencement of the new Act. Directing the parties to
enter into such agreement, in the view of this Court, is only to regulate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
rent as per the market value, since the very object of the new Act is to
regulate the rent on the basis of the terms set out by the parties in the
agreement.
10.The new Act provides a mechanism for fixation of rent, revision
of rent, etc. Section 8 of the new Act defines what is 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
11.This Court has consistently held in Babitha Devi v. Rajendra
Kumar [C.R.P.No.2252 of 2024, dated 08.01.2025], Habeeb Hardware v.
Noor Hardware [C.R.P.Nos.4509 & 4511 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024], and
several other judgments, as follows :
“Clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act makes it clear that even 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.”
12.As held by this Court, the rent shall be as per the terms agreed
between the parties. The new Act has also got a separate mechanism for
revision of rent, which is contained in Section 9 of the new Act. As per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
Section 9 of the new Act, the revision of rent between the landlord and
tenant shall be as per the terms set out in the tenancy agreement. The
procedure for increase of rent is also set out in Section 9.
13.Therefore, a combined reading of Section 4, Section 8 and Section
9 of the new Act will make it clear that the old rent cannot be continued to
apply and the rent will be fixed under the new Act. The new rent has to be
fixed only as per the terms agreed by the parties and the revision of rent has
to be as per the terms set out in the agreement. The procedure by which the
revision should take place is also contemplated under Section 9 of the new
Act.
14.Therefore, it is clear that the failure to enter into an agreement
either by the landlord or by the tenant, will give rise to a cause of action for
the landlord to seek eviction. It is relevant to note that, though eviction is
also permitted under new Act on the ground of alteration and demolition
and reconstruction under Sections 21(2)(e) and 21(2)(f), the fact remains
that, in the given case, eviction is sought not only on the ground of
demolition under Section 21(2)(e), but also under Section 21(2)(a) for non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
entering into an agreement.
15.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that, admittedly, on the date of notification of the new Act which
came into force on 22.02.2019, R.C.O.P. was already filed and pending
under the old Act. According to the learned counsel, the Legislature has
taken note of the pendency of the proceedings under the old Act and has
given an option to the landlord to switch over to the new Act within a
specific period; if such option is not exercised within the period stipulated
under Section 47 (Repeal and Savings Clause) of the new Act, the landlord
is not entitled to invoke the new Act.
16.In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 47 of the new Act :
“47.Repeal and Savings – (1) The Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the
provisions of this Act, all cases and other proceedings under
the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, shall be
continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this
Act had not been passed:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
Provided that the plaintiff within a period of 270 days of
coming into force of this Act shall be entitled to withdraw any
suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the
repealed Act with liberty to file fresh application in respect of
the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other
proceeding under and in accordance with the provisions of this
Act, and for the purposes of limitation, such application if it is
filed within a period of 360 days from the commencement of
this Act be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of
the suit which was withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of
appeal or other proceedings on the date on which the suit was
filed out of which such appeal or proceeding originated.”
17.A careful perusal of the above makes it clear that, notwithstanding
repeal of the old Act, all cases and other proceedings under the repealed Act
pending at the time of commencement of the new Act shall be continued
and disposed in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. However,
the proviso gives an option to the landlord to withdraw the pending
proceedings filed under the old Act and to institute proceedings under the
new Act. Such withdrawal shall be made within a period of 270 days.
Thereafter, an application ought to have been filed within a period of 360
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
days under the new Act. It is relevant to note that, though option has been
provided to the landlord to switch over to the new Act, the entire Repeal
and Savings clause cannot be read as a total bar for the landlord to take
benefit granted under the new Statute. The very object of the new Act is to
regulate the rent between the landlord and the tenant as per the terms agreed
between the parties. The rent shall be regulated as per the terms agreed by
the parties in the contract, i.e., written tenancy agreement. Only to achieve
such terms to be entered into between the parties, Section 4(2) of the Act
made it mandatory that, even in respect of the existing tenancy, when there
is no agreement entered into between the parties, the parties are required to
enter into an agreement in writing within a period of 575 days from the date
of commencement of the Act, i.e., 22.02.2019. Proviso to Sub-Section (2)
of Section 4 of the new Act makes it very clear that, irrespective of the
failure on the part of the tenant or the landlord in entering into the
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. Therefore, under the new Act, the contract is
made sine qua non to continue tenancy. In the absence of such contract
entered into between the parties within the period stipulated, it is also one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
of the grounds for eviction.
18.If really the landlord has sought eviction under the new Act by
canvassing the same ground which was raised under the old Act, without
exercising the option within the particular period as provided under the
proviso to Section 47 of the new Act, then it can be said that the landlord
cannot invoke the new Act. However, when the landlord has filed the
eviction petition on a new ground under the new Act, i.e., non-entering into
an agreement, then, in the view of this Court, the proviso to Section 47(2)
cannot be read as a total bar at all. If such a contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then it will, in fact, amount to a total
bar for the landlord to exercise his right under the new Act for ever. The
proviso to Section 47 (Repeal and Savings clause) of the new Act should be
construed to mean that there should not be any simultaneous proceedings
under the old Act and the new Act. Only for that purpose, time has been
fixed to exercise the option. Otherwise, it will lead to the situation, even
when the earlier application filed under the old Act has been allowed to be
dismissed for default or withdrawn or decided, then there will be bar for the
landlord to invoke new Act in view of the proviso to Section 47(2) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
Act.
19.It is relevant to note that a learned Single Judge of this Court, in
similar situation, in the case of Mohana v. Rameesa Beevi and others
reported in (2022) 5 CTC 300, has held as follows :
“4.2.The New Act has come into force on 22-02-2019,
and the window for switch over will close on 17-11-2019. Now,
what if a proceeding under the old Act is dismissed for default
after 17-11-2019 ? Here, the landlord may either revive the
proceedings under the old Act and continue it under the old Act
in terms of Sec.47(2), or can abandon it, and institute a fresh
proceeding under the new Act. Here, the landlord may
encounter another situation: A possibility of an attempt of the
landlord to restore a proceedings dismissed for default under
the old Act itself is dismissed by the Rent Controller. What
options are open to the landlord then ? He necessarily may
have to invoke the new Act for remedy. It may be argued that in
such cases, a landlord may prefer an appeal and thereafter a
revision, still there is no guarantee that the attempt of the
landlord to restore a proceeding under the old will end
favourably. Now, if the argument of the learned counsel for the
tenant were to be accepted, then the landlord in both these
situations will possibly be without remedy. This apart there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
no provision under the old Act parallel to the one in
Sec.21(2)(a) of the new Act. Therefore, if a landlord intends to
invoke the ground under Sec.21(2)(a), then necessarily
he/she/it may have to invoke only the new Act. The intent of the
legislature evidently is that the landlord should not resort to
both the old and new Acts simultaneously vis a vis pending
proceedings, and Sec.47 of the New Act must therefore be
understood thus.”
20.Similarly, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Babu v.
Rameesa Beevi and others reported in (2022) 7 MLJ 658, has held as
follows :
“12.At the time when the present petition is filed on
some other ground, there is no confusion on the point of
maintainability. The earlier petition filed by the landlords
under the Old Act was dismissed. After the New Act came into
force, if a landlord prefers to invoke a new ground for eviction
in view of the New Act, there cannot be any denial to maintain
his new petition nor can he be forcibly driven to file a suit for
eviction. Since the present petition has been filed entirely on a
new ground after the New Act came into force, the present
petition is in no way relevant to the earlier petition filed in
RCOP.No.286 of 2018. Since the petition under Section 47(2)
of the New Act has been filed on a thorough misconception, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
revision petition is devoid of any merit.”
21.The very proviso to Section 47 of the new Act starts with a non-
obstante clause and the expression “subject to the provisions of this Act” is
consciously made in the provision. This makes it very clear that, only the
continuation and disposal of the existing proceedings alone is governed by
the old Act and if the proceedings under the old Act is terminated and not
proceeded further, it cannot be said that the landlord is not at all entitled to
invoke the new Act for eviction once for all. Such interpretation will, in
fact, lead to chaos and in fact, deny the very valuable right accrued to the
landlord for seeking eviction under the new Act. The definition of “tenant”
under the new Act will substantiate such interpretation. As per Section 2(n)
of the new Act, the “tenant” means “a person by whom or on whose
account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or, but for a contract express
or implied, would be payable for any premises and includes any person
occupying the premises as a sub-tenant and also, any person continuing in
possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the
commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person against whom
any order or decree for eviction has been made.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
22.The above definition makes it clear that, only the person against
whom any order or decree for eviction is already made, is not included as a
“tenant”. As long as the earlier proceedings has not culminated into any
order or decree for eviction, such person is within the ambit of definition of
“tenant” under Section 2(n) of the new Act. Therefore, merely because the
landlord has failed to exercise the option provided under Section 47(2) of
the new Act and has not continued the proceedings the old Act, it cannot be
said that there is a total bar for invoking the new Act as long as no order or
decree for eviction is passed against the tenant. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that, even if landlord has failed to exercise the option within time
to switch over to new Act, still he can invoke new Rent Control Act for
eviction on different grounds which were not available under old Act.
23.Further, the non-obstante clause, viz., “notwithstanding such
repeal and subject to the provisions of this Act” provided under Section 47
of the new Act, makes it clear that the landlord can still maintain a petition
under the new Act. The expression “subject to the provisions of this Act”
provided under Sub-Clause (2) of Section 47, in the view of this Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
makes it clear that, when the earlier RCOP has not resulted in an order or
decree for eviction against the tenant, the landlord is still entitled to invoke
the provisions of the new Act on different grounds, and such application
filed under the new Act is maintainable, despite the fact that he has not
exercised the option provided under the proviso to Section 47(2) of the new
Act.
24.In view of the above discussion, the point is answered against the
petitioner/tenant. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision.
Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the
concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Appellate Court ordering
eviction under Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into an agreement. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.07.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
To
1.The XIX Additional Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The X Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
01.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/07/2025 08:45:48 pm )
