Madras High Court
Ravi Kapoor @ R.J.Ravindranath vs Janaki on 12 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP No.1863 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP NO.1863 of 2025
Ravi Kapoor @ R.J.Ravindranath ... Petitioner
Vs.
Janaki ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 03.02.2025
passed by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
in RLTA No.5 of 2025, by erroneously setting aside the judgment and
decree dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned XI Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai in RLTOP No.188 of 2023, and allow the above CRP by
restoring/confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.Ashok
For Respondent : Mr. R.R.Mohana Raja
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing the order
of the Rent Controller, the present revision has been filed.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Rent
Court.
3. The applicant/landlord has filed an application under Section
21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of
Landlords and Tenants Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”) for
eviction of the tenant on the ground that the written rental agreement has
not been registered within 575 days.
4. The stand of the respondent/tenant is that though the applicant
used to collect the rents, and the rents have been paid regularly by the
respondent, there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the
parties. One R.K.Manulal has filed a similar petition for eviction against
the father of the respondent in RCOP No.2322 of 1976, and the same was
dismissed on 28.04.1978. According to the respondent, the applicant has
not proved that the premises belonged to him. Even after termination
notice, the applicant has collected the rent from the respondent. Only after
filing of the eviction petition, he refused to receive the rent. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
opposed the application.
5. Before the Rent Court, on the side of the applicant/landlord, the
applicant examined himself as PW.1 and on the side of the
respondent/tenant, the respondent examined herself as RW1 and Exs.R1 to
R4 were marked..
6. The Rent Court, taking note of the submissions and the documents
filed, allowed the application by an order dated 18.10.2023. However, the
First Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 03.02.2025 in RLTA No.5 of
2024, dismissed the RCOP and allowed the appeal on the ground that since
the permanent land register reflects the name of Gurunanak Trust, the
applicant/landlord is not entitled for eviction. Challenging the same, the
present revision is filed by the applicant/landlord.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant/landlord would submit that
the First Appellate Authority ought not to have gone into the title when the
very Act itself clearly stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Rent Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
limited only with regard to the tenancy agreement. The question of title or
ownership of the premises shall be beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent
Court. Further, the very counter indicates that rents were received by the
applicant and rents have been regularly paid by the respondent. Hence, It
cannot be said that there was no jural relationship between the parties and
further, the very rent receipts filed by the respondent before the Rent Court
proves the jural relationship between the parties.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted
that one R.K.Manulal had earlier filed RCOP in the year 1976 against the
respondent's father before the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, which
was dismissed on 28.04.1978. There was no jural relationship between the
parties and the permanent land register reflects the name of the Gurunanak
Trust. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to seek eviction. The learned
counsel further submitted that Section 3(c) of the Act extends to the Trust
property.
9. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made
by the learned counsel and perused the materials available on records
carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
10. Now, the point arose for consideration is that whether there is
jural relationship between the parties or not.
11. Though there was no written agreement entered into between the
parties, the fact is that the applicant was collecting the rents from the very
beginning and the rents have been regularly paid by the respondent to the
applicant. The said facts have been admitted in the very counter itself.
That apart, the exhibits filed on the side of the respondent, viz., rent
receipts, also substantiated the said facts. It is relevant to note that the very
object of the 2000 Act is to regulate the rent as per the terms of the
agreement entered into between the owner of the premises and tenant. It
also aims to balance the rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the
tenant and provide regulation of the rent as per the agreement. Section 4(2)
of the Act mandates that even when the tenancy was created before the
commencement of this Act and no agreement in writing was entered into,
the landlord and the tenant shall enter into an agreement in writing with
regard to that tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of the
commencement of the Act. The above proviso makes it clear that despite
failure on either side, the same will be a ground for eviction. Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
21(2)(a) of the Act provides ground for eviction, in the event of the
agreement not being entered into within 575 days. Therefore, once the Act
came into force, it is the duty of the parties to enter into an agreement.
Admittedly, in this case, no such agreement was entered. In fact, which
gives cause of action for eviction.
12. As far as the other contention now raised that there is no landlord
and tenant relationship is concerned, it is relevant to note that “the
landlord” as per the definition of the Act means a person, who receives or is
entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, on his own account, with the
premises rented to tenant and shall include a trustee also”. Similarly, a
tenant means “ a person by whom or on whose account or behalf, the rent
of any premises is, or, would be payable for any premises, is the tenant
under the Act. Therefore, from the above definition, it is made clear that to
be a landlord, one need not be the owner of the property. One who receives
rent, on his own account, is a landlord under the Act. Similarly, a person,
who pays the rent to such person is the tenant. Therefore, now having
admitted that rents have been regularly paid to the applicant, now the tenant
cannot take a different view and question the title of the landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
13. It is further to be noted that Section 40 of the Act clearly
stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Rent Court shall be limited to the
tenant's agreement alone. The question of title or ownership of the
premises will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. Despite the
above stipulation in the Act itself, the First Appellate Court has simply
gone into the title, that too without any proof, merely on the basis of some
permanent land register filed.
14. Yet another submission of the learned counsel is that Section 3 of
the Act clearly exclude the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Rights and Responsibility of the Landlord and Tenant Act. On perusal of
section 3 of the Act, it is made very clear that any religious or charitable
institution is exempted from the Government by notification alone and not
exempted from this Act. No such notification was available on his record.
Therefore, exclusion of the applicability of Such Act as submitted by the
respondent has no force in the eye of law.
15. Therefore, in the absence of any agreement entered within 575
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
days, after commencement of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, which gives the landlord for
recovery of the premises as per Section 21[2][a] of the Tamilnadu
Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act.
This aspect has been elaborately discussed in the judgment of this Court in
CRP NPD Nos.3056, 3061, 3062, 3063 and 3067 of 2021, dated
04.02.2022 [S.Muruganandam Vs. J.Joseph, wherein this Court in para 13
has held as follows :
“13. From the instances that had arisen in these
six revisions, the different types of cases that may arise
before the Rent Court can be broadly classified as
follows:
i. Written tenancy created prior to and expired
prior to the commencement of the Act (Tenant holding
over under an oral tenancy);
ii. Oral tenancies created prior to the New Act and
no written agreement entered into;
iii. Written tenancies created prior to the New Act
and the period expired after the commencement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
Act;
iv. Written tenancies entered after the
commencement of the New Act not registered but
subsisting;
v. Written tenancies created after the
commencement of the New Act and had presently
expired (either registered or unregistered)
vi. Oral tenancies created after the New Act.”
Further in paragraph 16 of the above judgment, it has been held has follows
:
“16. I have enumerated the six possible
contingencies that would arise in respect of either
execution of a written agreement or registration thereof
under the provisions of the New Act. As far as the first
three contingencies are concerned, it can straight away
be concluded without much difficulty that all of them
will be covered by Section 4(2) and its proviso. Thus the
landlord would have the right to invoke Section 21(2)(a)
of the New Act, in respect of contingencies 1 & 2 and all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
other clauses of Section 21(2) in the respect of the third
contingency to seek eviction of such tenants where the
agreement expired after the commencement of the New
Act. This is for the reason that the predecessor
enactment recognised oral tenancies and the general law
namely the Transfer of Property Act also recognised oral
tenancies.”
In such view of the matter, the very Act itself gives a right to the landlord
for eviction of the tenant for violation of mandatory provisions. Hence,
the order of the appellate court is liable to be set-aside .
16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
judgment and decree dated 03.02.2025 passed by the XVIII Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in RLTA No.5 of 2024 is set-aside and
thereby, the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2023 passed by the XI Judge,
Court of Small Causes , Chennai in RLTOP No.188 of 2023 is confirmed.
No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
12.06.2025
mrp
To
1. The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mrp
.
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 03:41:37 pm )
