Madras High Court
R.Paul Pandian vs Y.Suresh Babu on 25 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.5333 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.5333 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.29620 of 2024
R.Paul Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
Y.Suresh Babu ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2024 passed in
R.L.T.A.No.87 of 2022 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai, confirming the fair and decretal order of the Rent Court, dated
23.04.2022, passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.343 of 2019 on the file of the X Court
of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.J.J.R.Edwin
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
C.R.P.No.5333 of 2024
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”), the present revision has been filed by the tenant.
2.Brief facts of the case are as follows :
2.1.The respondent/landlord filed an application for eviction of the
petitioner/tenant in respect of the subject property. According to the
respondent, the petitioner was a tenant under the vendor of the respondent.
After purchase, the petitioner has assured the respondent a monthly rent of
Rs.30,000/-. The respondent prepared three rental agreements, one for 1st
Shop, one for the 2nd Shop, and the other for a Godown separately.
Accordingly, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- in all, i.e.,
Rs.20,000/- for each portion. The petitioner has not paid the rent despite
several requests made by the respondent. According to the respondent, the
petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- for the period from
22.03.2018 to 22.10.2019. That apart, the petitioner has failed to enter into
an agreement under the new TNRRRLT Act. Further, the landlord requires
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
the property for bona fide self-occupation. Hence, the landlord filed the
application in R.L.T.O.P.No.343 of 2019 on the file of the X Court of Small
Causes, Chennai, seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT
Act.
2.2.It is the contention of the tenant before the Rent Court that there
was no jural relationship between the parties. It was further stated that the
subsequent purchaser cannot seek eviction under new enactment without
attornment of tenancy. The petitioner was a tenant under one V.Sundar on a
monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. He
became the tenant in the year 1991 and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- and
he has been paying rent to the said V.Sundar without any default. It was
further stated that the earlier owner has made an attempt to evict the tenant
on 04.04.2018. In this regard, a suit has also been filed in O.S.No.1932 of
2018 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the
erstwhile landlord and the tenant has obtained interim injunction in
I.A.No.5136 of 2018. Therefore, it was stated that the present application
filed by the respondent for eviction, is not maintainable. Further, he is
ready and willing to enter into a rental agreement with subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
purchaser of the premises. It is his contention that the time limit for
entering into tenancy agreement was extended to 210 days commencing
from February, 2020, which will come to an end only in September, 2020,
whereas, the application for eviction has been filed on 30.04.2019 and
therefore, it is premature and is liable to be dismissed.
2.3.The Rent Court framed the following points for consideration :
i. Whether there exists any jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the petitioner and respondent ?
ii. Whether the present petition filed by the petitioner is
premature as per proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act ?
iii. Whether the petition is to be allowed on the ground under
Section 21(2)(a) for non-entering into written tenancy
agreement as per Section 4(2) of the Act ?
2.4.Though several grounds have been raised for eviction, the parties
confined the issue only with regard to entering into an agreement within the
specific period granted by the Statute. It is the contention of the tenant that
the application has been filed prematurely without waiting till the expiry of
the time period of 575 days granted by the Statute under Section 4(2) of the
Act to enter into such agreement. Therefore, the tenant canvassed the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
issue as main issue. The Rent Court held that the application is not
premature and therefore, ordered eviction.
2.5.The petitioner filed an appeal before the XIX Additional City
Civil Court, in R.L.T.A.No.87 of 2022. The Rent Appellate Court has also
confirmed the order of the Rent Court ordering eviction.
2.6.Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
present revision has been filed by the tenant.
3.The main ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that the eviction petition is filed prematurely
without waiting for the period of 575 days prescribed under Section 4(2) of
the TNRRRLT Act to expire. Therefore, it is his contention that the
eviction application is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel relied upon the judgment in M/s.Top Kapi v. S.Sarath
Babu [C.R.P.No.445 of 2023, dated 06.04.2023].
4.Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
the application has been filed in time as per the original Act. It is his
contention that, merely because time period has been extended later by way
of amendments, that cannot be pressed into service. The landlord need not
wait till the expiry of the period prescribed under the Statute, to file an
application for eviction. It is his further contention that the very object of
the Act is to regulate the rent as per the terms agreed between the parties.
The rent has to be fixed as per the market value and when the very Act itself
is brought to regulate the rent, the tenant cannot take undue advantage of
the time limit specified in the Act. He refuted the contention of the tenant
that the period given under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act to enter into
such agreement has to expire for maintaining an eviction application. The
learned counsel would submit that the time limit is given only for both sides
to enter into an agreement in writing. When the tenant has purposefully not
taken any steps to enter into an agreement, that cannot be pressed to non-
suit the eviction application per se is not maintainable.
5.In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
consideration in this revision is whether any application filed before the
expiry of time period prescribed under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act,
is premature or not maintainable ?
Point :
6.As regards the status of the parties, there is no dispute at all.
Though the petitioner was originally inducted by the vendor of the
respondent, he continued to pay the rent. It is the specific case of the
respondent that he has purchased the property on 22.03.2018, which was
also informed to the petitioner. The petitioner also, in his counter before
the Rent Court, has clearly averred that he is also ready and willing to enter
into an agreement in respect of the subject premises. This fact clearly
indicates that the tenant is also aware of the purchase of the property by the
respondent and he is bound to pay the rent. However, the agreement has
not been entered.
7.Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
is that the application filed for eviction is premature. The Tamil Nadu Act
42 of 2017, namely, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, came into force on
22nd February, 2019 by repealing the old Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of
1960). In the original Act which came into effect from 22.02.2019, a period
of 90 days is prescribed for the landlord and tenant to enter into an
agreement in writing as per Section 4(2) of the Act. Later, the time period
was extended to 210 days by Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2019. Later, the time
period was further extended to 575 days by Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2020. It is
relevant to note that the application has been filed on 30.04.2019 well
within the period of 210 days which was in vogue prior to the amendment
as per Act 3 of 2020.
8.In M/s.Top Kapi v. S.Sarath Babu [C.R.P.No.445 of 2023, dated
06.04.2023], relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a learned
Single Judge of this Court has held that an application filed before the
expiry of 575 days is not maintainable. I have gone through the said
judgment. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey and
another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 arising out of Negotiable
Instruments Act to maintain a complaint, wherein, it is held that there was
no cause of action to maintain the complaint. The same analogy has been
applied to the rent control proceedings. With great respect to the learned
Single Judge, this Court is of the view that the very object of the Act has
not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
9.The very object of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
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.
10.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
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
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.”
11.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.
12.It is relevant to note that the landlord and the tenant are bound by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
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
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. This intention of the legislature can be gathered from the
subsequent provisions introduced under the new Act. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
was already entered into, the rent agreed to between the
landlord and the tenant in such agreement.”
13.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.”
14.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
revision of rent, which is contained in Section 9 of the new Act. As per
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.
15.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.
16.Now, even assuming that the period stipulated under Section 4(2)
of the TNRRRLT Act has not expired, the fact remains that the time period
was extended to 575 days by way of Act 3 of 2020 which came into effect
only from 20.09.2019. Prior to that, the time prescribed in the Statute was
210 days and the application has been filed within that particular period.
When a party raises a ground that the application is premature, he has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
show the prejudice caused to him. Unless prejudice is established on
record, merely an application filed prematurely cannot be non-suited. The
very pleadings of the parties clearly indicate that the landlord has been
demanding written agreement from the date of purchase of the premises.
However, the tenant has not come forward to enter into any terms as to the
rent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, merely because time period
has been stipulated in the Statute for the parties to enter into agreement, that
cannot be construed to mean that the parties have to wait till the expiry of
the entire period stipulated in the Act, for filing an application for eviction.
When the very object of the Act is to direct the parties to enter into an
agreement to regulate the tenancy, it is for the tenant or the landlord to take
action in this regard immediately. They cannot be a mute spectator and wait
till the expiry of the period stipulated. On record, this Court finds that no
prejudice, whatsoever, is shown by the tenant in filing an application before
the expiry of the period stipulated under Section 4(2) of the Act.
17.In the case of Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India
reported in (2005) 4 SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
be filed again on its having matured for filing.”
18.Similar view has been taken by this Court in M/s.Motor Vehicles
and Allied Association v. J.Paramanandam [C.R.P.(NPD) No.4199 of
2022, dated 29.04.2024]. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in the
said judgment, has held as follows :
“19.I would still have to deal with the issue whether the
R.L.T.O.P. can be dismissed as premature since it was
presented within 575 days from the date on which the Act came
into force. Before, I enter into the case laws, one fact that I
have to notice is that this petition was filed before the
Amendment was made to the Act extending the grace period for
entering into an agreement to 575 days. When the Act was
originally notified, the time period was 90 days. Later, Section
4 (2) of the Act was amended and the time period was extended
to 210 days. It was only in February 2020, the Act was further
amended, extending the time period to 575 days.
20.A perusal of the petition shows that this petition was
filed before the Amendment of the Act in 2020, but after the
expiry of the grace period of 210 days. Therefore, on the date
of filing the petition, the R.L.T.O.P. was not hit by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
Amendment.”
19.Even this Court, in Palkani v. J.Raghu and another
[C.R.P.(NPD) No.4500 of 2024, dated 09.01.2025], has held as follows :
“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 cannot be countenanced. Even assuming that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
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.Further, as already pointed out, no prejudice, whatsoever, is
caused to the tenant. If the tenant is really intended to enter into a tenancy
agreement for a reasonable rent based on the market value, nothing
prevented him from doing so. However, even during the pendency of the
proceedings, he has not come forward to enter into an agreement.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the application for eviction is not at all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
maintainable.
21.It is further to be noted that Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act
mandates the parties to enter into an agreement and only a grace period has
been given to do such exercise. In the entire Act, when carefully read,
there is no statutory bar for filing any application within the grace period
granted by the Statute. Grace period is mainly granted enabling the parties
to enter into an agreement. The very amendments made from time to time
extending the time limit from 90 days to 210 days and thereafter to 575
days, is only based on the representations received from the landlords and
tenants to enter into such agreement and registering the same before the
Rent Authorities. Therefore, merely because the Statute provides for grace
period for entering into an agreement, that cannot be construed to mean that
till the expiry of such period, eviction petition is not at all maintainable.
Hence, the point is answered against the revision petitioner/tenant.
22.In fine, I do not find any merit in this revision. Accordingly, this
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
25.06.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
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.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 08:07:36 pm )
