Madras High Court
Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu vs M/S.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd on 29 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Pronounced on : 29.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.23516 & 17669 of 2023
C.R.P.No.4284 of 2023 :
Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Balamurugan,
Plot No.30, Old No.5, New No.9,
Sundar Nagar - 1st Avenue,
Ekattuthangal, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated 24.04.2023 in R.L.T.A.No.136 of 2022
passed by the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, partly confirming
the order and decretal order dated 19.09.2022 passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.510
of 2020 on the file of the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Page 1 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates
For Respondent : Mr.B.Kumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023 :
M/s.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.S.Balamurugan,
Plot No.30, Old No.5, New No.9,
Sundar Nagar, 1st Avenue,
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai – 600 032.
Now residing at :
Old No.1, New No.27,
Murugesan Street, Tondiarpet,
Chennai – 600 081. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Pushpavalli Suresh Babu ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated passed in R.L.T.A.No.136 of 2022 dated
24.04.2023 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai,
partly allowing the order and decretal order made in R.L.T.O.P.No.510 of
2010 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court/Rent Court, Chennai.
Page 2 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates
C.R.P.No.3787 of 2023 :
Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Sopos Technology Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Balamurugan,
Now having office at
No.14, Jaya Balaji Nagar Main Road,
K.K.Nagar West,
Nesapakkam,
Chennai – 600 078. ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated 17.08.2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in
O.S.No.4058 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai, and consequently, strike off and reject the plaint.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates
For Respondent : Mr.B.Kumar
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan
Page 3 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.4284 & 3787 of 2023 will be referred to as “landlady” and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023 will be referred to as “tenant”.
2.Challenging the order passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.A.No.136 of 2022, dated 24.04.2023, directing the tenant to pay the monthly rent from August, 2020, till he hands over possession of the subject premises, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.4284 of 2023 contending that she is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent as per Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the TNRRRLT Act” or “the new Act”).
3.Challenging the same order directing the tenant to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.4,13,000/- till he hands over possession, even after termination of tenancy by the tenant himself, the tenant has filed C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023.
Page 4 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
4.Challenging the order passed by the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.4058 of 2022, dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 16 r/w. Order VII Rule 11 CPC to strike off and reject the entire plaint in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 filed by the tenant for recovery of security cum advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/-, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.3787 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as follows :
5.1.The landlady let out the subject premises to the tenant as per the lease deed dated 18.01.2019. The lease commenced from 15.02.2019. The monthly rent originally agreed between the parties was Rs.2,70,000/-
together with GST at 18% p.a. An advance of Rs.31,60,000/- has been paid by the tenant. The agreement also stipulates a lock-in period of 3 years.
5.2.The grievance of the landlady is that, though the tenant paid the monthly rents regularly for over a year, later, he has defaulted in payment of Page 5 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 rent. The last rent was paid in the month of May, 2020 at the rate of Rs.4,13,000/-. It is her contention that, though, initially, rent was fixed at Rs.2,70,000/-, it was thereafter increased to Rs.4,13,000/-. It is also her contention that, apart from the default, the tenant also misused the premises and did not maintain the premises properly.
5.3.When the matter stood thus, on 07.07.2020, the tenant issued a notice terminating the tenancy. The said termination notice was replied by the landlady on 09.07.2020. Thereafter, the tenant has demanded refund of advance amount by a legal notice in the first week of August, 2020. It was also replied by the landlady on 05.08.2020.
6.According to the landlady, despite lease has been terminated way back in August, 2020, by the tenant himself, the tenant has not vacated and handed over the possession of the premises and therefore, the tenant is liable to pay Rs.20,65,000/- towards arrears of rent. Besides, it is her contention that, as the agreement is not a registered one, it cannot be termed as a valid agreement under Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act. Therefore, the landlady filed R.L.T.O.P.No.510 of 2020 before the XVI Court of Small Page 6 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 Causes, Chennai, for eviction under Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d) of TNRRRLT Act and also sought compensation of double the monthly rent, as the tenant has not vacated and handed over possession of the property to the landlady.
7.The tenant contested the eviction petition before the Rent Controller. Admitting the jural relationship between the parties, it is the contention of the tenant before the Rent Controller that the rent has been increased by the landlady from Rs.2,70,000/- to Rs.4,13,000/- as against the terms of the contract. According to the tenant, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, he faced loss in the business and therefore, he could not run the Company. Therefore, he informed the landlady that he is not in a position to continue the lease and issued notices dated 07.07.2020 and 28.06.2020 terminating the lease and requesting the landlady to refund the balance advance amount and to take possession. As the landlady did not come forward to refund the advance amount, the tenant also sent a legal notice for refund of advance amount of Rs.31,60,000/-, after adjusting the three months' rent amount, on handing over the keys to the landlady. According to him, he has paid rent upto 31.08.2020. He also denied the allegation of misuse of the property. Page 7 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 Further, it is his contention that the landlady always insisted the lock-in period of three years as per the unregistered lease agreement and therefore, she did not refund the advance amount. Further, it is his contention that non-registration of the lease is not at the fault of the tenant.
8.Based on the above pleadings, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :
i. “Whether there is a jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties ?
ii. Whether this application is maintainable u/s.21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act or not ?
iii. Whether this application is maintainable u/s.21(2)(b) of the TNRRRLT Act or not ?
iv. Whether this application is maintainable u/s. Section 21(2)(d) of the TNRRRLT Act or not ?
v. Whether this application is maintainable u/s.23 of the TNRRRLT Act or not ?”
9.The landlady examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P31. On the side of the tenant, the Director of the tenant Company examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R6.
Page 8 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
10.Based on the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, the Rent Controller ordered eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act and dismissed the application qua Sections 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(d) of the Act. Similarly, the claim under Section 23 of the Act was also dismissed.
11.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim under Section 23, Section 21(2)(b) and Section 21(2)(d) of the TNRRRLT Act, the landlady preferred an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.136 of 2022 before the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
12.The Rent Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part, confirming the eviction under Section 21(2)(a) and the dismissal under Sections 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(d) of the Act, however, directing the tenant to pay the admitted monthly rent of Rs.4,13,000/- from the month of August, 2020 till he vacates and hands over possession of the property to the landlady. The claim of compensation of double the monthly rent as per Section 23 of the Act was negatived by the Appellate Court.
Page 9 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
13.Challenging the order of the Rent Appellate Court refusing the claim under Section 23 of the Act, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.4284 of 2023. Similarly, aggrieved over the order of the Rent Appellate Court directing the tenant to pay the monthly rent till he hands over possession, the tenant filed C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023.
14.Meanwhile, the tenant has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, for recovery of the advance amount. In the said suit, the landlady has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 16 r/w. Order VII Rule 11 CPC to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 and to reject the same. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the landlady has filed C.R.P.No.3787 of 2023.
15.Learned counsel appearing for the landlady before this Court would submit that, though the lease agreement entered into between the parties was unregistered, it is clearly admitted by the parties that there is a lock-in period of three years and the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Page 10 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 Rs.4,13,000/-. However, the tenant himself has terminated the lease by Ex.P1 dated 07.07.2020. Hence, it is his contention that, once the tenancy has been terminated by order or notice, if the tenant has not vacated the premises, the landlady is entitled to compensation at the rate of double the monthly rent for the use and occupation of the premises by the tenant, as per Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act. Even assuming that an unregistered agreement is not admissible in evidence, rate of monthly rent is clearly admitted. Despite sending a letter terminating the tenancy as early as on 07.07.2020, the tenant has not vacated the premises on the ground that the advance amount has not been paid. It is his contention that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the tenant has not vacated the premises even after termination of tenancy. The very object of the Act is to compensate the landlord for illegal occupation by the tenant. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, in any event, as long as the tenant has not vacated the premises and withheld the keys with him, it should held that possession is with him and the landlord, in such cases, is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent as per the Statute.
Page 11 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
16.It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the landlady that the tenant had already invited adverse orders by filing M.P.No.1 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.510 of 2020 under Section 24 of the TNRRRLT Act, wherein, he had sought for return of advance amount. A clear finding has been recorded by the Rent Controller in the said petition that the tenant was already in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.61,95,000/-, which has already exceeded the advance amount of Rs.21,60,000/- payable by the landlady. Thereby, the petition filed by the tenant in M.P.No.1 of 2021 was rejected by the Rent Controller. As against the said order, a revision was filed by the tenant before this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.2978 of 2021, which was also later dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the issue of return of advance amount has already been decided by the Rent Controller under the provisions of the special Act (TNRRRLT Act) and the findings of the Rent Controller has reached finality. Such being the position, now filing a suit for recovery of the advance amount before another forum, is an abuse of process of law. The tenant, having elected statutory right under the special Act for refund of advance amount and the Rent Controller having rejected his claim, the tenant cannot once Page 12 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 again file a suit for recovery of money before the Civil Court.
17.Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant before this Court would submit that the tenant has, in fact, vacated the premises and intimated his intention to handover the keys, but it is only the landlady who has not taken possession of the property. According to him, the landlady insisted payment of rent on the basis of lock-in period for three years as per the lease agreement. It is his contention that the very lease agreement itself is not admissible in evidence, since it is an unregistered one. Further, the so-called lease agreement is also not produced. Therefore, according to him, it has to be held that constructive possession has been given to the landlady. Therefore, the claim of compensation of double the monthly rent as per Section 23 of the Act is not maintainable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Section 23 of the Act is only a declaration and for recovery of any amount under the said provision, only a suit will lie before the Civil Court. Further, it is his contention that the landlady has already taken possession of the premises in the year 2020 itself and she has issued a paper publication on 11.09.2020 to let out the premises to third parties. In fact, the eviction petition has been filed on 04.11.2020. Page 13 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 However, even prior to that, the landlady has given publication in newspapers to let out the premises to third parties. This fact clearly indicates that possession has been taken by the landlady. Therefore, according to him, it cannot be said that the tenant is still holding possession of the property, in order to claim any compensation. Further, it is his contention that, admittedly an advance amount of Rs.31,60,000/- was paid by the tenant. The said amount is also withheld by the landlady, despite the constructive possession has already been taken by her. Therefore, the tenant has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for recovery of advance amount. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments :
i. A.Iqbal Ahamed v. J.Tajmul Hussain and others [2010 (5) CTC 671] ii. V.S.Mohan v. Sarath Naseera [C.R.P.(PD) No.782 of 2023, dated 30.07.2024 (Madras High Court)] iii. K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd.
[2008 (5) CTC 260] iv. Icra Limited v. Associated Journals Limited and another [2007 (98) DRJ 638] Page 14 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
18.In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the following points arise for consideration in these revision petitions :
i. Whether the landlady is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent as per Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act, in the event the tenant has continued to be in possession even after termination of tenancy ?
ii. Whether the tenant, having elected to pursue his remedy under the special Act (TNRRRLT Act) for recovery of advance amount and lost in his attempt, is entitled to file a separate suit before the Civil Court for recovery of the same amount which was declined by the Rent Court ?
iii. To what other relief(s) the parties are entitled to ?
Point No.(i) :
19.The first issue that arises in this case is whether the landlady is entitled to compensation at the rate of double the monthly rent for use and occupation by the tenant, as provided under Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act. The very object of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, is to regulate the rent Page 15 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 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 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 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.
20.The constitutional validity of the new Act has also been upheld by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3985 of 2020, etc. batch, wherein, it is held as follows : Page 16 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 “19.The next contention is that the Act takes away the protection so far enjoyed by the tenants. Even if the landlord fails to enter into an agreement or agree on fixing any reasonable rent, he can still take advantage of his default. At the outset, the said contentions are unacceptable. Firstly, about the protection that was hitherto granted to the tenants in Ram Krishan Grover's case (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:-
“46. The following observations in Ravi Dutt Sharma [Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, (1984) 2 SCC 75] relating to the right given to the landlords for eviction in context of the rent control legislation are pertinent: (SCC p. 79, para 7) “7. … Tenants cannot complain of any discrimination because the Rent Act merely gave certain protection to them in public interest and if the protection or a part of it afforded by the Rent Act was withdrawn and the common law right of the tenant under the Transfer of Property Act was still preserved, no genuine grievance could be made.” 19.1.Thus, it can be seen that the legislature in its wisdom has considered the prevailing socio-economic condition and the availability of the properties for rent and has decided to balance the conflicting rights of landlords and tenants. In any event, the said policy underneath the legislation Page 17 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 cannot be termed as manifestly arbitrary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shayara Bano v. Union of India 38 , had laid down when a legislation can be interfered by the Court on the ground of Manifest Arbitrariness and it is useful to extract the relevant portion which reads as follows:
“101 …..Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.” Therefore, not even arbitrariness in the provisions of the Act can be raised by any party.
21.Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act reads as follows :
“23.Compensation in case of non vacancy : A landlord is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent for the use and occupation of a premises by a tenant who does not vacate the unit after his tenancy has been terminated by order, notice or agreement, as the case may be.” Page 18 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
22.A careful perusal of the above provision makes it clear that, if the tenant does not vacate the premises after his tenancy has been terminated by order or notice or agreement, as the case may be, the landlord is entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent for the use and occupation of the premises.
23.It is relevant to note that, as per Section 36 of the TNRRRLT Act, any application filed under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 21 of the Act has to be decided within a period of 90 days of filing of such application. Any application filed under Clauses (d) and (g) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 21 of the Act has to be decided within a period of 30 days of filing of such application. Therefore, from the said provisions, it is clear that the Act is aimed at speedy disposal of the eviction proceedings. Section 23 is also one such speedy mechanism introduced in the Act to pay double the monthly rent as compensation in the event of the tenant not vacating the premises even after termination of tenancy by order or notice.
Page 19 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
24.Section 24 of the Act deals with refund of advance rent by the landlord, which reads as follows :
“24.Refund of advance rent by the landlord - (1) Where a landlord exercises the right of recovery of possession under sub-section (2) of section 21, and he had received any rent or any other payment in advance from the tenant, he shall, before recovery of possession, refund to the tenant such an amount after deducting the rent and other charges due to him.
(2) If any default is made in making any refund, the landlord shall be liable to pay simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time on the amount which he has omitted or failed to refund.”
25.The above provision makes it clear that, where any order is obtained under Section 21(2) and the landlord has received any rent or any other payment in advance from the tenant, he shall, before recovery of possession, refund to the tenant such an amount after deducting the rent and other charges due to him. If any default is made in making the refund, the landlord shall be liable to pay interest at the rate prescribed from time to time on the amount which he has omitted or failed to refund. Therefore, Section 24 of the Act makes it clear that the tenant is entitled to seek for Page 20 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 refund of advance amount, however, such advance amount shall be payable to the tenant after deducting the rent and other charges due to the landlord. Therefore, Section 24 does not direct that the entire advance amount has to be paid at the time of recovery of possession. It has taken care of arrears, if any, and other charges due to the landlord. Thus, the arrears as well as other charges payable to the landlord have to be deducted while refunding the advance amount. The very arrangement of Section 24 below Section 23 of the Act makes it clear that, if at all there is any advance refundable to the tenant, the same will be subject to deduction of arrears and other charges, if any, payable to the landlord.
26.The concept of “double rent” was originally under the Statute in England. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dealt with this aspect in Hindustan Steel (Private) Ltd. v. Shrimathi Usha Rani Gupta and another reported in (1967) SCC Online Del 70, wherein, it is held as follows:
“21.As already stated, in England the principle of double rent is based on a statute. There the matter is governed by two statutes viz the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730 Section 1, and Distress for Rent Act, 137, Section 18. The latter Act Page 21 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 only applies where the tenant has given a notice binding upon him to quit at the expiration of the term specified in the notice and upon which the landlord might at that time act and bring ejectment In such a case the relationship of landlord and tenant still continues and the action is not in the nature of an action for penalty (see Northcott v. Roche [(1921) 37 T.L.R.
364.] . On the other hand, under section 1 of the landlord and Tenant Act, 1730 if a tenant for any term for a life or years, or any person who gets possession of the permises under or by collusion with such tenant wilfully holds over the premise after the determination of the term, and after demand made and notice in writing given for delivery of possession by the reversioner or his lawfully authorised agent, the person so holding over is liable to pay to the reversioner at the rate of double the yearly value of the premises and against this penalty there is no relief in equity (see Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and tenant fourteenth Ed P. 616 and cases cited in foot, note under para 486). Whether the payment is treated as rent or as penalty in either case the liability is founded on statute in England. Even if it is held that on account of its antiquity the statutory rule has become a part of the common law of England. There is no warrant for extending it to this country where in the absence of a statute the liability of a person wilfully holding over cannot reasonably be made to exceed that of a trespasser. Having regard to the definition of Page 22 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 “mesne profits” in section 2(12) Civil Procedure Code, we also find no escape from the conclusion that there is no other way in which “mesne profits” can be determined by the Court than by evidence being led before it about what the defendant has or might reasonably have made by his wrongful possession.”
27.In India, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, provides for double the rate of the licence fee under Section 24(2) of the said Act. Section 24(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, reads as follows :
“24.Landlord entitled to recover possession of premises given on licence on expiry : ... (2) Any licensee who does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the period of licence and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority shall be liable to pay damages at double the rate of the licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of licence.” Page 23 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
28.In Rajasthan also, similar provisions have been introduced in their Rent Act.
29.The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, has been enacted based on the recommendations of the Government of India and by taking into consideration the Model Tenancy Act, 2015, wherein, the compensation of double the monthly rent has been introduced in rent control proceedings as it was in vogue and available under the Statute of England. The very provisions of the Act make it very clear that, if the tenant does not vacate the premises even after termination of the tenancy, the landlord is certainly entitled to compensation of double the monthly rent. Section 24 of the Act also entitles the tenant to get refund of advance amount, however, only after the deduction of the rental arrears and other charges payable to the landlord. The compensation of double the monthly rent as well as deduction of arrears of rent from the advance amount have been introduced purposefully only to put an end to the eviction proceedings between the landlord and tenant within a time frame. Therefore, when the Act specifically provides under Section 23 that the landlord is entitled to compensation of double the Page 24 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 monthly rent if the tenant continues to hold the property even after the termination of the tenancy, such a provision cannot be held to be merely directory. It has to be held that it is mandatory and that the landlord is entitled to such compensation of double the rent.
30.Now, coming to the case on hand, admittedly, the tenant has sent a termination notice as early as on 07.07.2020, which is not in dispute. The only contention of the tenant is that, since the landlord did not refund the advance amount, the tenant did not handover the key to the landlady. Therefore, according to tenant, it should be construed as if constructive possession has already been taken by the landlady. Such a contention has no force in the eye of law. Admittedly, the tenant was evicted in execution proceedings in October, 2022. His evidence clearly indicates that he held the keys. Merely by locking the premises, but not handing over the key to the landlady, the tenant cannot contend that such act amounts to handing over of actual possession. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant that the landlady has also given paper publication on 11.09.2020 to let out the subject premises to third parties. Therefore, it should be held that constructive possession is already with the Page 25 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 landlady. Such contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, unless the tenant hands over actual physical possession to the landlady, mere sending letter of termination will never be construed as handing over of actual physical possession of the property. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the tenant has handed over possession has no legs to stand.
31.In the case in Icra Limited v. Associated Journals Limited and another [2007 (98) DRJ 638] relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the tenant, admittedly, there were terms agreed between the parties therein and only taking note of the contract especially, Clause 8, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has held that it may be construed as handing over of constructive possession by the tenant for the purpose of the suit filed for recovery of money. But the fact remains in this case that the tenant himself has admitted in evidence that he has not handed over the keys, except stating that he has vacated the premises and possession has been handed over. Therefore, the said judgment will not help the tenant in any way.
Page 26 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
32.Admittedly, the agreement between the parties is not registered. Therefore, eviction has been ordered under Section 21(2)(a) as if there is no agreement between the parties as required under Section 4 of the new Act. However, the fact remains that the monthly rent has not been disputed. The admission of the parties in oral evidence is the best evidence. Though Section 21(2)(a) gives right to either the landlord or tenant to terminate the tenancy for non-registration of the agreement, when the parties are not in dispute with regard to the actual rent payable, one cannot contend that, as long as there is no written agreement, provisions under Section 23 are not applicable. When the law itself declares that non-registration of the agreement would enable the parties to terminate the tenancy under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, it cannot be said that, only on basis of existing agreement, the compensation of double the rent can be claimed. That cannot be the very purport of the Act. The very object of the Act is to regulate the rent between the landlord and the tenant and make the parties to enter into a contract and also to speed up the rent control proceedings. 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 Page 27 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 parties in the agreement.
33.In the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, there is a clear provision that the competent authority has no choice but to pass orders for compensation and there is no question of exercising discretion in such matters when there is no dispute with lease and licence agreement between the parties. Similarly, in Fundacio Privada Intervida v. Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and another reported in 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 769, the Bombay High Court has held as follows :
“21.The dissection of the above section makes it clear that any licensee, who does not deliver possession of the premises to the landlord on the expiry of the period of license and continues to be in possession of the licensed premises till he is dispossessed by the Competent Authority is liable to pay damages at double the rate of the license fee or charge of the premises fixed under the Agreement of Licence. Section 40 deals with the appointment of the Competent Authority for the purpose of exercising powers conferred, and for performing duties imposed, on him under the Act. If that be so the conjoint reading of sections 24 and 40 and the scheme of the said Act would make it absolutely clear that the Competent Authority is not only entitled to recover possession of the premises of Page 28 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 dispossess the licensee but also has power to award compensation as contemplated under Section 24(2) of the said Act. Thus, the power to determine an award and/or compensation and/or damages and/or monetary part of the liability is not only incidental to the power to evict but a specific duty coupled with power, to determine this liability, is bestowed on the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority vide its order dated 26th February, 2002 could not have dropped the proceedings without determining compensation or damages under Section 24(2) of the said Act. Merely because possession was delivered by the license that by itself was not sufficient to take away jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to decide claim for damages. In my opinion, the view of the Competent Authority was based on mistaken reading of Section 42. Even if possession is delivered by the licensor before initiation of the eviction proceedings still the Competent Authority will have jurisdiction to entertain and determine claim under Section 24(2) of the said Act. In this view of the matter, the petition has no substance. The view taken in the impugned order by the revisional authority is in consonance with the provisions of the said Act.” Page 29 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
34.A careful perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, not only has power to recover possession, but also award compensation under Section 24(2) of the said Act.
35.In such view of the matter, once the tenancy is terminated, but the tenant has not vacated the premises and when the monthly rent of Rs.4,13,000/- is expressly admitted despite there is no registered written agreement, the landlady is entitled to compensation of double the rent from the date of termination of tenancy till the tenant vacates and hands over possession to the landlady. Therefore, the order of the Rent Appellate Court directing only monthly rent as compensation is liable to be interfered with. Point No.(i) is answered in favour of the landlord. Point Nos.(ii) & (iii) :
36.Insofar as recovery of advance amount is concerned, as per Section 24 of the Act (extracted supra) the tenant is entitled to refund of advance amount before recovery of possession by an order under Section Page 30 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 21(2), however, after deducting the rental arrears, if any, and other charges due to the landlord. Here, the fact remains that the tenant has, in fact, invoked the statutory right available to him under Section 24 before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller has already dismissed the claim on the ground that the rental arrears is to the tune of Rs.61,95,000/-, which exceeds the advance amount of Rs.21,60,000/- payable by the landlord. The revision filed against the said order is also withdrawn. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the refund of advance amount has already reached finality and the same is binding on the parties.
37.The tenant, having chosen one particular remedy available under the special Act which has reached finality, he cannot avail the remedy under general law before the Civil Court for recovery of money. The Doctrine of Election would come into play in such case. The tenant has already availed the benefit and canvassed his case under the special law and lost his case which has reached finality. Once again, he is precluded from invoking the general law for recovery of the same amount.
Page 31 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
38.The question is whether the tenant can move the Civil Court to seek refund of the advance rent after having unsuccessfully moved the Rent Court and suffered an order on merits. In Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, [141 ER 486], Willes, J has observed as follows :
“… There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law : there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, and the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy : there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. … The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.” Page 32 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
39.This test has been approved by two Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NP Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and Dhulabhai v State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1969 SC 78. In Dhulabhai's case (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals, the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. The only exception is that where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The above formulation can be simplified as follows:
Liability Remedy Legal position
Existing at common law Statute gives a special and Party can elect either the
and affirmed by statute peculiar form of remedy remedy under common law
different from the remedy or the statutory remedy
in common law
Statute merely gives a No particular form of Remedy is only in common
right to sue remedy is provided by the law
statute
Liability not existing at Statute gives a special and The remedy provided by the
common law and is peculiar form of remedy to Statute must be followed and
created by statute enforce it remedy under common law
is not available.
Page 33 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
40.In the instant case, the remedy under Section 23 falls in the third category. As held by the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Steel (Pvt) Limited's case (supra), the liability of the tenant to pay double rent did not exist in common law. The liability under Section 23 is statutory in nature and must be enforced only through the mechanism of the Rent Court. This is clear from Sections 33 & 40(1) of the Act, which read as follows:
“33.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends, only the Rent Court and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction, except the jurisdiction of Rent Authority under section 39, to hear and decide the applications relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected with and ancillary thereto covered under this Act:
Provided that the Rent Court shall, in deciding such applications relating to tenancies and premises, give due regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner, in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a Civil Court by way of suit.” Page 34 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
40.(1)Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the provisions of this Act.
(2)The jurisdiction of the Rent Court shall be limited to tenancy agreement submitted to it as per First Schedule and the question of title and ownership of premises shall be beyond its jurisdiction.”
41.Section 37(9) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, reads as follows :
“37. ... (9) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Rent Court shall, subject to decision in appeal, be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.” The above provision makes it clear that any order passed by the Rent Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Therefore, once the tenant has availed the statutory remedy under the TNRRRLT Act and suffered an order, once again he cannot file a original suit for recovery of money.Page 35 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
42.At the risk of repetition, Section 24 of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 reads as follows:
“24.Refund of advance rent by the landlord - (1) Where a landlord exercises the right of recovery of possession under sub-section (2) of section 21, and he had received any rent or any other payment in advance from the tenant, he shall, before recovery of possession, refund to the tenant such an amount after deducting the rent and other charges due to him.
(2) If any default is made in making any refund, the landlord shall be liable to pay simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time on the amount which he has omitted or failed to refund.”
43.In the absence of Section 24, it would have still been open to the tenant to move the Civil Court to seek recovery of money by way of an ordinary suit at common law. Section 24 is merely a statutory recognition of the liability of the landlord at common law to refund the advance after making due adjustments of rent and other expenses. Section 24 has also given the tenant a special, cheap and expeditious remedy to the tenant to seek refund before the Rent Court instead of filing a suit before the civil Page 36 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 court. Section 24 thus falls within the first category of cases where the tenant has two remedies and must elect either to avail the special statutory remedy under the Act or move the Civil Court by way of a suit for recovery of money.
44.Once the tenant availed the special statutory remedy under Section 24 and suffered an order on merits, the doctrine of election would apply and he would be precluded from then going back and pursuing the alternative remedy by way of a suit. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India reported in (2018) 12 SCC 83, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out as follows:
“3.Even if we presume that the suit was maintainable, at the same time the plaintiff also had remedy of filing the statutory appeals, etc. by agitating the matter under the Finance Act. It chose to avail the remedy under the Finance Act. The doctrine of election would, therefore, become applicable in a case like this. After choosing one particular remedy the plaintiff cannot avail the other remedy as well, in respect of the same relief founded on same cause of action.” Page 37 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
45.In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan reported in (2006) 2 SCC 641, the Supreme Court reiterated as follows:
“23.The “doctrine of election” is a branch of “rule of estoppel”, in terms whereof a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. The doctrine of election postulates that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party has the option to elect either of them but not both.”
46.Here, in the given case, it is not the case of the tenant that the Rent Controller has not followed the procedure and the provisions have not been complied with, so as to fall under the exception as indicated in Dhulabhai's case (supra). The tenant himself has filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2021 and invited adverse orders. Challenging the same, a revision has been filed in C.R.P.(PD) No.2978 of 2021 and the same has been withdrawn.
Therefore, as far as return of advance amount is concerned, the remedy provided under Section 24 of the special enactment, viz., TNRRRLT Act, 2017, has been exhausted by the tenant which has also reached finality. Therefore, the Civil Court is certainly barred from entertaining a suit for Page 38 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 recovery of the advance amount, once again on the same ground which has been negatived by the Rent Controller in earlier round of litigation. In this case, doctrine of election will certainly become applicable.
47.In K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
“One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.”
48.In view of the above discussion, the suit filed for recovery of advance amount is nothing but re-agitation, as the issue of refund of advance rent has already been answered in rent control proceedings under the special enactment (TNRRRLT Act) and the finding in that regard has reached finality. Therefore, once again, a suit for recovery of advance Page 39 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 amount, in the view of this Court, is a clear abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the same cannot be permitted to continue. If the same is once again permitted to continue, it will lead to driving the landlady to undergo the ordeal of trial once again unnecessarily. Point No.(ii) is answered against the tenant.
Point No.(iii) :
49.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the suit in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 itself is nothing but re-litigation and abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same has to be struck off at the initial stage itself. Accordingly, the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the landlord under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, is liable to be set aside. Point No.(iii) is answered accordingly.
50.In fine, i. C.R.P.No.4284 of 2023 filed by the landlady is allowed. The order of the Rent Appellate Court directing the tenant to pay only the monthly rent of Rs.4,13,000/- is set aside. The tenant is directed to pay compensation of double the admitted monthly rent at the rate of Page 40 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 Rs.4,13,000/- per month, as per Section 23 of the TNRRRLT Act, from August, 2020 till October, 2022, less the advance rent available with the landlady. The rest of the order of the Rent Appellate Court stands confirmed.
ii. C.R.P.No.2850 of 2023 filed by the tenant is dismissed. iii. C.R.P.No.3787 of 2023 filed by the landlady is allowed. The order of the trial Court dismissing the application in I.A.No.4 of 2022 to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.4058 of 2022, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.4 of 2022 stands allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.4058 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is struck off.
iv. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.07.2025 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No To Page 41 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023
1.The IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.The XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
4.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Page 42 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm ) C.R.P.Nos.4284, 2850 & 3787 of 2023 mkn Common Order in C.R.P.Nos.4284, 3787 & 2850 of 2023 29.07.2025 Page 43 of 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 08:40:15 pm )