Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. In S.Muruganandam Vs. J.Joseph, the following six contingencies have been dealt.

“i. Written tenancy created prior to and expired prior to the commencement of the Act (Tenant holding over under an oral tenancy);

ii. Oral tenancies created prior to the New Act and no written agreement entered into;

19. Section 4(1) of the New Act states that no person shall let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing. Since this revolutionary provision starts with a non-obstante clause, it tries to make the oral tenancy obsolete, atleast under the Rent Law Jurisprudence. Since the substantive law like Transfer of Property Act still recognizes oral lease for a period below one year and the Central Law has the advantage of prevailing over the State law in case of repugnancy, it is reliably learnt that this provision is said to be under challenge in a Writ Petition. If no such writ is filed so far, it might happen sooner or later.

63. One question that would linger in the minds of parties to the oral tenancy agreement or the parties who failed to register their written tenancy agreement would be should they remain remediless under the New Act. In case the parties are willing to continue the tenancy but have not chosen to reduce the terms of tenancy into writing, it is always open to them to enter into a fresh tenancy agreement by giving effect to the tenancy from the date when the tenancy agreement is entered. The said written tenancy agreement can be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 registered in terms of Section 4(3) of the Act. However, neither the tenant nor the landlord can seek any of their respective dues or liabilities that might have accrued to them in view of the oral or unregistered tenancy pending between themselves prior to the date of their newly written agreement. Because those claims are non-est in the eyes of the New Act, since they fall outside its purview. Anything falls outside the purview of the whole of the Act includes the bar under Section 40 also. Hence the parties are not deprived to file civil suits if they have any valid claims between the above said period and if they are maintainable under any of the law in force.

64. Since the New Act is still a toddler more awareness needs to be been given about the evils of oral tenancy and non-registration of tenancy under the New Act. Though the Act is applicable to urban area, due to the mixed demography of the urban mass it is not easy for the New Act to percolate in the minds of the people, who still stick to the time-tested old law and practice where they enjoyed oral tenancy. And the time limit of 575 days is still not too long a period to change that practice. The irony of the New Act is that though it brings the sub-tenants who do not have any sort of privity of either oral or written contract of tenancy with the landlord under its wings, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.587 & 1937 of 2022 excludes the parties to oral tenancy agreement. Hence the Rent Authorities shall be liberal whenever application for registration of tenancy is filed with a petition to condone the delay in filing the said Applications.