CRP/4545/2026 of Indira Projects and Developments (T) Private Limit Vs Lubna Syed on 1 October 2026

ORDER

There are two civil revision petitions between the same parties. In respect of one portion under the occupation of the tenants, eviction was ordered concurrently as against which the tenants are before this Court in C.R.P. No. 4545 of 2026. In respect of another portion under the occupation of the very same tenants, the Rent Court ordered eviction. However, the Rent Tribunal reversed the order of eviction and dismissed the eviction petition as against which the landlords have preferred C.R.P. No. 5330 of 2026.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both matters, namely, learned counsel for the tenants and the learned counsel for the landlords.

3. The eviction proceedings were initiated under the new Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (in short ‘ TNRRRLT Act’)(Act 42 of 2017 as amended by Act 39 of 2018). The ground on which eviction is sought is that there is failure to enter into a tenancy agreement by the parties. It is the contention of the tenants that the tenancy itself had come into force after the commencement of the new legislation, namely, TNRRRLT Act. Therefore, the very filing of the eviction 4\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026 petition invoking the provisions of the new act was erroneous and rightly, the Rent Tribunal reversed the finding rendered by the Rent Court, which is the subject matter of CRP. No. 5330 of 2026. Applying the same analogy, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants, that the Courts below, namely, the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal have erroneously applied Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act without even noticing that the agreement having been entered into after the commencement of the new Act, the Act itself could not have been applied and the parties should have gone only before the Civil Court seeking eviction. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the tenants has relied upon the decision of this Court in S. Muruganandam V. J. Joseph reported in 2022 (1) LW 752.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the landlords would submit that this Court, in the case of Andal V. Lawrence Swami Doss, reported in 2024 Supreme (Mad) 423), on considering the law laid down in S. Muruganandam V. J. Joseph (2022 (1) LW 752), held that even any new agreement that is reached between the landlord and the tenant has to be in compliance with the provisions of the new Act and if the said agreement, eventhough in writing, has not been duly registered with the Rent Authority, then it would still amount to failure to enter into a tenancy agreement.

6. In the light of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of eviction passed in respect of the portion, which is the subject matter 5\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026 of C.R.P. No. 4545 of 2026 and on the same line of reasoning, the order passed by the Rent Tribunal reversing the well considered order of eviction in R.L.T.O.P. No. 176 of 2025 passed by the Rent Court, which is the subject matter of C.R.P. No. 5330 of 2026 deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the tenants sought time till 31.03.2027 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises. It is also brought to my notice that in respect of rent, there is a dispute between the parties, since a portion of the tenanted premises has already been surrendered by the tenants to the landlords.

8. It appears that there is a security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs that is still intact and available with the landlords. However, Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan, learned counsel for the landlords would submit that the security deposit is only Rs.12 lakhs. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to go into the said issue. Admittedly, there are two civil suits pending in O.S. No. 2779 of 2025 before the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and O.S. No. 2797 of 2025 before the XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, with regard to alleged rental arrears payable by the tenants in respect of the portions under their occupation. It shall be open to both the parties to agitate their respective claims and contentions with regard to the quantum of advance/security deposit that is available with the landlords and the actual arrears of rent that is payable by the tenants to the landlords in the said suits. 6\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026

9. Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenants, I find that there is also a prayer seeking payment of future rent-cum- damages in the aforesaid suits @ Rs. 53,386/- per month in respect of one portion and @ Rs.1,19,770/- per month in respect of another portion. In the light of sufficient security deposit being available with the landlords, which can always be adjusted as against any decree that may be passed in favour of the landlords in the pending suits in O.S. No. 2779 of 2025 before the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and O.S. No. 2797 of 2025 before the XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the tenants shall deposit, in all, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, to the credit of O.S. No. 2797 of 2025 on the file of XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, without prejudice to their contentions in the pending civil suits, towards arrears of rent/future damages for use and occupation until 31.03.2027 considering their request for time till 31.03.2027. The Trial Court concerned shall take into consideration the said deposit, if complied with by the tenants, while arriving at the amount that may be due and payable by the tenants. The said sum of Rs.5 lakhs shall also be accounted for, apart from the security deposit, which is already available in the hands of the landlords. At the time of passing the decree, the security deposit amount that may be found to be available with the landlords and the sum of Rs.5 lakhs, which is directed to be deposited by the 7\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026 tenants, if complied with, shall also be adjusted, before passing a decree in the pending suits. The suits shall be disposed of on or before 30.04.2027.

10. The tenants have filed affidavits of undertaking in the civil revision petitions that they will vacate the tenanted premises under their occupation by 31.03.2027. The averments with regard to claim of rent to be Rs.70,000/- only, however, is a matter of dispute and therefore, the tenants cannot take any advantage of the undertaking affidavits dated 01.10.2026 that have been filed in the respective civil revision petitions and accepted by this Court. It is made clear that the undertaking recorded is only limited to the extent of the tenants agreeing to vacate the tenanted premises under their occupation by 31.03.2027 subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, as directed above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event of default committed by the tenants, in this regard, then the tenants shall not have time till 31.03.2027 and the landlords shall be at liberty to execute the decree and proceed to take possession.

11. In the event of the Trial Court concerned, finding that the plaintiffs in the respective suits are not entitled to the suit claim and if it is found that the plaintiffs in the respective suits will have to refund any excess advance amount to the tenants, then the Trial Court concerned is permitted to pass a decree in favour of the defendants/tenants directing the amount ascertained to be payable by the plaintiffs/landlords to the defendants/tenants. 8\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026

12. Considering the fact that there are two suits pending between the same parties, one in O.S. No. 2779 of 2025 before the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and another in O.S. No. 2797 of 2025 before the XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, both relating to substantially the same disputes between the parties, by exercising suo motu powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I hereby withdraw and transfer O.S. No. 2779 of 2025 from the file of XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to the file of XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to be jointly tried along with O.S. No. 2797 of 2025, which exercise would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting orders besides saving judicial time of the Court.

13. In the result, C.R.P. No. 4545 of 2026 stands dismissed and C.R.P. No. 5330 of 2026 stands allowed. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps are closed. 01-10-2026 nv To

1. The XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. The XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

4. The XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 9\10

CRP No. 4545 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI J. nv

5. The XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

6. The XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. CRP Nos. 4545 of 2026 and 5330 of 2026 01-10-2026 10\10