CRP/1394/2023 of T. PREMKUMAR Vs RAMESH KUMAR JAIN on 2 November 2026

Order

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant to strike of the application in RLTOP.No.638/2022, pending on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, as an abuse of process of Court.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the Civil Revision Petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner’s grandfather, one Elumalai, was inducted as a tenant of the shop premises in the ground floor, measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft., in Door No.65, Jermiah Nagar, Vepery, Chennai, by one Ragotham. After the demise of the revision petitioner’s grandfather, the revision petitioner continued in the demised premises and was running a Salon. After the demise of the said Ragotham, the rent was continued to be paid to his wife Sowjanya. While so, on 11.04.2016, the respondent purchased the property from the erstwhile landlord. The respondent alleged the revision petitioner neither tendered the rent nor entered into a tenancy agreement and instead, filed

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

two suits against the respondent in OS.No.2204/2018, for an injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him and OS.No.2824/2018, for an injunction, not to demolish the building. Thereafter, on the respondent’s request, the revision petitioner paid the rent for the period from 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2022, at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month, on 20.03.2022. However, no rental agreement was entered into. The respondent alleged that after 01.03.2022, the revision petitioner failed to pay the rent and therefore, he issued a notice on 11.07.2022, terminating the tenancy and calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the demised property. The revision petitioner sent a reply on 08.07.2022,. However, he failed to execute the rental agreement. The respondent, under the circumstances, filed the petition for eviction under Section 21[2][a] of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, as amended by Act 39 of 2018, since the revision petitioner failed to enter into an agreement as required under Section 4[2] of the Act.

The revision petitioner filed an affidavit raising preliminary issue of the maintainability of the eviction petition. According to the revision petitioner, the tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the respondent was an oral agreement and despite his request to enter into a rental agreement, the respondent had refused. The revision petitioner contended that since the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, did not recognize oral tenancy, the eviction petition was not maintainable. The revision petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in S.Muruganandam and Others Vs. J.Joseph and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 958, in support of his contention that as per paragraph No.13 of the aforesaid judgment, eviction petition is not maintainable. Having raised a preliminary objection, the revision petitioner filed the revision petition to strike of the application in RLTOP.No.683/2022.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

The short point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the RLTOP is liable to be struck off?

When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the respondent, though he was served notice.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the application in RLTOP.No.638/2022, as not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of this Court in S.Muruganandam’s case [referred to supra], reported in 2022 [2] CTC 291 : 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 958. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the present case falls under the 5th and 6th categories referred in S.Muruganandam’s case and therefore, as per the aforesaid judgment, the landlord cannot seek remedy under the

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, but has to approach the Civil Court by invoking the Transfer of Property Act.

The facts are undisputed. There is no written tenancy agreement between the revision petitioner and the respondent. Even the tenancy under the original landlord was only an oral tenancy. Even though either parties accuse each other for not entering into a tenancy agreement, the fact remains that there is no written agreement and the tenancy continues to be oral from its inception. According to the revision petitioner, the case falls under the 5th and 6th categories in S.Muruganandam’s case. In S.Muruganandam’s case, the Hon’ble Judge has categorised the revision petitions into six categories and categories 5 and 6 read as follows:- ‘’34.The fifth category of cases relate to agreements which had been entered into after the commencement of the New Act and had expired at the time of presentation of the eviction petition. Here again there may be two kinds of agreements namely a Registered Tenancy Agreement or an Unregistered Agreement. Under Section 5(3) of the New Act, a tenant can be considered to be a tenant holding over only for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the lease and not thereafter. The effect of Section 5(3) is that a tenant who continues in possession after the expiry of the lease period is deemed to be a tenant for a period of six months within which he could either renew the lease or enter into a fresh lease. The remedy available to a

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

landlord against such tenant, who continues in possession after the expiry of the lease, would depend on the time at which the landlord decides to seek eviction. Three possible situations could arise, they are (i) The landlord demanding possession at the end of the tenancy and the tenant refusing to vacate; (ii) The landlord demanding possession within the period of six months during which the tenancy is deemed to continue; and (iii) There is no demand by the landlord even after the expiry of the six months period.

35. In cases which come under the first category, the remedy of the landlord within the six months period during which the tenancy is deemed to be continued will be under the New Act and the landlord can seek eviction on all grounds under Section 21[2] of the New Act, except Clause [a] namely, non execution of a Registered Lease Deed. In view of Section 5[3] of the New Act, the status of the tenant ceases to be that of a tenant after the expiry of the six months period and if the landlord is to seek eviction after the six months period landlord will have to necessarily invoke the General Law and sue for eviction after terminating the tenancy.

36. In respect of the second category namely where the landlord demands vacant possession within the extended period of six months, the landlord would be entitled to invoke the grounds of eviction available under Section 21[2] except of course Clause [a] of sub section [2] of Section 21 of the New Act.

37. As far as the third category is concerned despite their having been a valid tenancy in view of the provisions of

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

Section 5[3], the status of the tenant would cease to be that of a tenant under the New Act, after the expiry of the six months period. The landlord will have to take recourse to the General Law to sue for ejectment, after determining the tenancy. As regards tenancies which are created after the New Act, where there is no registered instrument, the landlord will have recourse only to the Transfer of Property Act to sue for evictin.

38. Insofar as the sixth category of cases where there is no written agreement of tenancy either registered or unregistered, the landlord will have no other option but to seek remedy under the Transfer of Property Act. In these cases, as could be seen from the object of the enactment, the Fast Track eviction proceedings will not be available to such landlords.’’

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the aforesaid two categories, contended that as per category 5, the revision petitioner is considered as a tenant holding over and therefore, since the six months had period expired, the landlord’s remedy for eviction is under the General Law. The learned counsel further submitted that category 6 was also attracted since the New Act does not recognise oral tenancies and hence, the landlord’s remedy for eviction is only before the Civil Court. I am afraid, the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner do not impress me.

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

Admittedly, the revision petitioner’s grandfather became a tenant under Mr.Ragotham, the erstwhile landlord, by an oral agreement. After the demise of his grandfather, the revision petitioner continued the tenancy by paying rents initially to the landlord Mr.Ragotham and on his demise, to his wife, Sowjanya. The respondent purchased the property in the year 2016, and even as per the revision petitioner’s own case, he tendered the rent to the respondent and the existing oral agreement continued. Further, indubitably, no written agreement was entered into by the parties either prior or post the commencement of the New Act. Category 5 in S.Muruganandam’s case, relates to tenancy agreements either registered or unregistered, created after the commencement of the New Act and which expired at the time of presentation of the eviction petition. Category 6 relates to oral tenancy agreements created after the commencement of the New Act. Since the tenancy in the present case is not created after the commencement of the New Act, but was one created even prior to the New Act, in my considered view, neither Category 5 nor Category 6 applies to the facts of the case. In my further view, the present case falls squarely under Category 2, which relates to oral tenancies created prior to the New Act and no written agreement was entered into. In S.Muruganandam’s case, insofar as Category 2 is concerned, the learned Judge has categorically held that the landlord would have a right to invoke Section 21[2][a] of the New Act since it is

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

covered under Section 4[2] and its proviso. On the basis of the facts of the case and in the light of the judgment in S.Muruganandam’s case, heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am of the view that the contention of the revision petitioner that the case falls either under Category 5 or Category 6, is untenable and that the case falls only under Category 2.

At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the revision petitioner, in his preliminary objection before the Trial Court, took a categorical stand that RLTOP was not maintainable since it fell under Category 2 of the judgment in S.Muruganandam’s case. The revision petitioner probably realising that, if the case fell under Category 2 of S.Muruganandam’s case, the RLTOP would be maintainable, changed his stand before this Court. Be that as it may, the facts clearly reveal that there was an oral tenancy agreement between the revision petitioner’s grandfather and the erstwhile landlord, which continued after the purchase of the property by the respondent without a written tenancy agreement being entered into, either prior or post the New Act. Since I have held that the present tenancy is covered by Category 2 of the judgment in S.Muruganandam’s case, I find that the respondent’s petition for eviction under Section 21[2][a] of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, as amended by Act 39 of 2018, is very much maintainable.

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

Hence, I find no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To

1. XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

CRP No. 1394 of 2023

N.MALA J. AP Order in CRP No. 1394 of 2023 AND CMP NO. 9342 OF 2023 02-11-2026