R.Syed Sadiq v. M. Durdana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09..06..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and C.M.P.No.12108 of 2025 R.Syed Sadiq ..... Petitioner -Versus1.Tmt.M.Durdana 2.Mr.Syed Ali Abdul Rahman, carrying on business undr the name and style M/s.Link Mobile Service, Shop No.3, "B" Block Ground Floor, Nawab Habibullah Electronic Market, No.33, New Door No.24, Wallers Road, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002.
..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 21.12.2024 made in R.L.T.A.No.88 of 2024 by the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai [Rent Tribunal] reversing the order and decretal order dated 27.02.2024 made in R.L.T.O.P.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai [Rent Court].
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Rabiya For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.Dhamodaran for R1
ORDER
Challenging the reversal of the findings by the Rent Tribunal and the consequential order of eviction, the tenant has filed the present revision before this Court.
2. On 01.02.2016, the 1st respondent leased out a shop premises measuring 90 square feet to the revision petitioner for a period of ten years from 01.02.2016 onwards. The agreed monthly rent was Rs.7,000/- for the first five years, and Rs.8,000/- for the remaining five years. The revision petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent and unlawfully sublet the premises to the 2nd respondent. After adjusting the legitimate payments made, the respondent claimed rent arrears to the tune of Rs.1,61,500/- for the period from September 2020 to April 2022. The default is alleged to be wilful, deliberate, and indicative of a negligent attitude. A legal notice dated 19.04.2022 was issued terminating the tenancy. However, despite such termination, both the revision petitioner and his sub-tenant, the 2nd respondent continue to remain in occupation of the premises without paying rent or settling the arrears. The eviction petition was vehemently opposed by the tenant.
3. The Rent Court, by its order dated 27.02.2024, dismissed the eviction
petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.32 of 2023 filed by the landlord. It held that although the original tenancy agreement was unregistered, the tenancy subsisted until 25.03.2026. Since the eviction petition was filed on 10.06.2022, during the subsistence of the tenancy and under an agreement executed prior to the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (RRRLT Act), the Rent Court, relying on the decision in S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph [2022 (2) CTC 291 (Mad)], found that no ground for eviction was made out.
4.Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Court, the landlord filed an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.88 of 2024 before the Rent Tribunal. By judgement dated 21.12.2024, the Rent Tribunal reversed the findings of the Rent Court, holding that, in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (RRRLT Act), particularly the requirement of a registered tenancy agreement, the tenancy could not be treated as validly subsisting. Consequently, the Rent Tribunal concluded that the landlord had established a valid ground for eviction. In addition, it directed the tenant to pay compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month from May, 2022 until the delivery of vacant possession. The present
revision petition, filed by the tenant, challenges the validity of the aforesaid judgement of the Rent Tribunal.
5. The revision petition is listed today for hearing on the question of admission.
6. Heard Ms.N.Rabiya for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.L.Dhamodharan for the 1st respondent/landlord and also perused the available records carefully.
7. In the case of Babitha Devi v. Rajendra Kumar and another (CRP No. 2252 of 2024, dated 08.01.2025), this Court considered a revision petition challenging concurrent findings of eviction as ordered by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal. While upholding the eviction, this Court, following the decision in S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph [2022 (2) CTC 291 (Mad)], held that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (RRRLT Act) gives rise to a cause of action for the landlord to seek eviction under Section 21 of the Act, where either the tenant or the landlord fails to enter into a registered tenancy agreement. The relevant paragraphs of the order of this court read as under:- "The very object of the Act 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 between the parties, Section 4 makes it clear that even in respect of the existing tenancy when there is no 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."
8. When this Court was about to dismiss the revision petition at the admission stage itself, finding no merits in light of the settled position of law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner promptly filed an affidavit sworn by the revision petitioner (tenant), seeking twenty-four (24) months' time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject premises. According to the revision petitioner (tenant), he has invested a substantial amount in the
business being carried on at the premises and, therefore, requires twenty-four months' time to vacate and deliver possession.
9. When this Court expressed the view that granting the time sought by the tenant would defeat the very object of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, and was therefore not inclined to grant such an extended period for delivering vacant possession of the subject premises, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner upon receiving instructions from his client who was present in court, requested that time be granted at least until 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises. The said request is recorded.
10. A scanned reproduction of the affidavit of undertaking filed by the revision petitioner/tenant is as follows:-
11. Notwithstanding the initial request for a 24-month extension to hand over vacant possession of the subject premises to the 1st respondent/landlord, the affidavit of undertaking filed by the revision petitioner is taken on record, in view of the earnest submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant. It is, however, made clear that the revision petitioner/tenant is granted time only till 31.12.2025 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject premises to the 1st respondent/landlord.
12. It is further made clear that, in the event the revision petitioner/tenant violates the undertaking given before this court, he shall be liable to be proceeded against for contempt of Court for breach of the said undertaking. In addition, a suitable direction shall be issued to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to ensure that the revision petitioner/tenant, or any other person in occupation of the subject premises, is evicted forthwith and vacant possession is handed over to the 1st respondent/landlord.
13. Until the subject premises is vacated and vacant possession is handed over by the revision petitioner/tenant to the 1st respondent/landlord, the revision petitioner/tenant shall continue to pay the agreed rent without any default.
14. Insofar as the recovery of arrears of rent and compensation ordered by the Rent Tribunal is concerned, it appears that there exists a dispute between
the parties regarding the exact quantum of arrears payable by the tenant to the landlord. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/landlord has filed a memo stating that the arrears of rent payable as on March 2022 amounts to Rs.1,92,500/- and that the arrears of compensation, as per the order passed in R.L.T.A. No.88 of 2024, for the period from April 2022 to May 2025, amounts to Rs.5,92,000/-. Thus, the total arrears of rent and compensation allegedly payable by the revision petitioner/tenant to the 1st respondent/landlord comes to Rs.7,84,500/-.
15. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/landlord that the respondent has already instituted a suit in O.S. No. 1221 of 2025 on the file of the learned XXIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking recovery of arrears of rent and other consequential reliefs, if any. It is needless to state that the 1st respondent/landlord is at liberty to proceed with the said suit against the revision petitioner/tenant for recovery of arrears of rent, in accordance with law.
16. In the light of the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Time is granted to the revision petitioner/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the subject premises to the 1st respondent/landlord on or before 31.12.2025. The affidavit of undertaking filed by the revision petitioner/tenant
shall form part of the record. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
Index : yes / no 09..06..2025 : yes / no kmk To 1.The XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court [Rent Tribunal], Chennai. 2.The XV Judge, Court of Small Causes [Rent Court], Chennai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk 09..06..2025