CRP/6493/2026 of Ranjani U Subhash Vs K.Siva Kumar on 12 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the online rejection order dated 28.8.2026, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and also went through the online rejection order order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

CRP No. 6493 of 2026

3. The petitioner is the landlord who initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent. The petition filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Rent Control Tribunal on the ground that the tenancy agreement has not been registered. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.

4. The issue involved in the present CRP is squarely covered by my earlier order passed in CRP.No.4791 of 2026 dated 12.8.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

4. The issue that is involved in the present case is squarely covered by the latest order passed by this Court in CRP (MD) No.1357 of 2026, dated 12.06.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

12. Earlier, this Court was called upon to consider the very same issue as regards the registration qua the maintainability of an eviction petition under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act. This was in V.Ganesh Vs. S.Balaji, C.R.P.No.1891 of 2025. The Hon'ble Ms.Justice P.T.Asha rendered the following judgment on 29.04.2025. The learned Judge has held as follows: “8. In the first instance, it is the admitted case of both the parties that the last of the renewal of the tenancy agreement was on 29.10.2012 and thereafter, despite the request of the landlord, the tenant had not come forward to execute the tenancy agreement. Therefore, on considering the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.3056 of 2021, etc. batch, it is clear that the present case would clearly fall within the class of cases at serial no.1 i.e. prior to the commencement of the Act tenancy agreement had been created and the same had expired.

CRP No. 6493 of 2026 Therefore, the possession of the tenant is that of a tenant holding over under an oral tenancy. The learned Judge has clearly observed that in such cases, the tenant is liable to be evicted, as there is no written agreement.”

13. This view of the learned Judge was put to challenge before the Supreme Court in V.Ganesh Vs. S.Balaji, S.L.P.(C).Nos.17295 to 17296 of 2025. Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ, vide order dated 04.07.2025, held as follows: “Having regard to the averment in landlord's petition that last rent agreement was dated 29.10.2012, we do not find any merit in the objection as to the maintainability of landlord's petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

14. This is not a single line order of the SLP, which normally would not operate as a precedent on the point. The Supreme Court was specifically called upon to address whether the view laid down by this Court in V.Ganesh’s case, C.R.P.No.1891 of 2025, holding that in the absence of the written agreement as required under Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act, an eviction petition under Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act is maintainable, is correct or not. The Supreme Court confirmed the said view and held that there is absolutely no merits in the objection that is being raised by the tenant. In other words, unless and until an agreement is entered into, an eviction petition is maintainable.

15. I should add here that this very issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in S.R.Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and three others in W.P.No.26344 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022. In that writ petition, the constitutional validity of the proviso appended to Section 4(2) and Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act of 2017 as amended by The Act 39 of 2018 was put to challenge. A Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr.T.Raja, Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar, held as follows:-

CRP No. 6493 of 2026 “4. The proviso to Section 4(2) clearly states that where the landlord or tenant fails to enter into an agreement under the sub~section, they shall have the right to apply for termination of the tenancy under clause (a) of sub~section (2) of section 21. Sub~section (2) of Section 4 provides a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the Act for the landlord and the tenant to enter into an agreement in writing, if there was no prior agreement. Admittedly, in the present case, no agreement was entered into between the petitioner/tenant and the fourth respondent/landlord prior to the Act coming into force, namely 22.02.2019. Therefore, as per the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act, there is a vested right on the parties either to enter into an agreement within 575 days after the Act coming into force or to terminate the tenancy. 5….when admittedly the petitioner was a tenant under the fourth respondent landlord in the premises in question, no written agreement was entered into between them even after 22.02.2019, the date on which the Act came into effect and therefore, the landlord has a vested right to seek for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.……….. when the relationship of tenant and landlord has legally come to an end in the absence of any lease agreement between the two even after 22.02.2019 and in view of the vested right on the landlord to seek for eviction of the tenant as per the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act.”

16. The Division Bench in Hemalatha’s case, cited supra, has not referred to this earlier judgment. The portions extracted above would show that if an agreement is not entered into between the landlord and tenant, after the coming into force of the Act, a vested right on the landlord is created to seek for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(2)(a). This would be in direct conflict with the view taken in Hemalatha’s case, cited supra. It has been settled by the Supreme Court that if the later Division Bench does not take

CRP No. 6493 of 2026 notice of the judgment of the earlier Bench, the later decision does not displace the earlier one by virtue of being later in time. In such a case, the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam. [See, Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, AIR 2014 SC 1745, (paragraph No.15)]. This puts an end to the objection of Mr.Anish Gopi that the RLTOP itself is not maintainable as there is no registration of an agreement as required under Section 4.

5. It is clear from the above order that registration of the Tenancy Agreement is not mandatory to maintain the petition under Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act.

6. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the Registry of the Small Causes Court, Chennai to take on file the petition filed by the petitioners in RLTOP Sr.No.6486 of 2026, number the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the Rent Control Tribunal, Chennai, to take on file the petition filed by the petitioner in RLTOP.Sr.No.7564 of 2026, to number the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. 12-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp

CRP No. 6493 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp To The Rent Control Tribunal Chennai. CRP No. 6493 of 2026

12-10-2026