Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. As per the averments in RLTOP No. 91 of 2019, the premises in question was let out to the tenant in ground floor for a monthly rent of Rs.46,375/- and at the time when the tenant was inducted, he paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance. It is further stated that the tenant is running a toy shop in the name and style of M/s. Top Kapi in the premises in question. According to the landlord, after the coming into force of The Act, he issued a notice dated 28.03.2019 calling upon the tenant to enter into a rental agreement. Since it was not responded, the landlord sent another notice on 19.04.2019 intimating that the tenancy stands terminated and called upon the tenant to handover the vacant possession of the premises. It is further stated by the landlord that he is entitled to double the rent as per Section 23 of the Act from 16.04.2019. As the tenant failed to vacate the premises, he has filed RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 as mentioned above.

10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the new Act came into force on 22.02.2019 and Section 4 of the Act mandated the landlord and tenant in the State to enter into a written agreement within 90 days therefrom. However, the time stipulated thereof was subsequently extended to 210 days and further extended to 575 days. In the present case, the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 was filed on 17.09.2019, it was numbered on 20.09.2019 and on notice, the tenant/revision petitioner entered appearance on 22.11.2019 through their counsel. When the time for compliance of Section 4 of the Act was extended and it was in force as on the date of filing RLTOP No. 91 of 2019, it cannot be said that the tenant failed to comply with the requirements https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, the tenant in the reply notice dated 04.04.2019, Ex.R1 has categorically expressed their inclination to enter into a written agreement of tenancy. However, in quick succession, the landlord had sent the notice dated 19.04.2019 terminating the tenancy from 13.04.2019 inter alia claiming Rs.92,750/- as rent together with Goods and Service Tax. Therefore, at the time when the tenant had sent the reply dated 04.04.2019, Ex.R1, the time limit provided under the Act was very much in force. Even otherwise, under Ex.R1, the tenant had requested to furnish a draft tenancy agreement to enable them to proceed further. However, by suppressing the receipt of Ex.R1, the landlord has filed the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019. Therefore, when the time limit extended under the Act was available, the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 itself is not maintainable, which was overlooked by the Courts below. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

12. Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Before proceeding further, it must be stated that the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 was filed by the landlord, invoking Section 21 (2) (a) as well as Section 23 of The Act. The rent Controller refused to grant any relief under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 23 of the Act against which the landlord has not preferred any appeal. The tenant alone has filed the appeal in RLTA No. 104 of 2022 before the Appellate Court as against the findings in relation to Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act. Therefore, in this Civil Revision Petition, this Court is not dealing with the averments made in the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 with reference to Section 23 of the Act and this Court confines this order only in respect of the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Courts below in relation to Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act.

18. In this background, it must be stated that the Act was amended successively from time to time. Initially, under Section 21 of the Act, 90 days time was provided for the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement from 22.02.2019, the date on which it was enacted. The time was subsequently amended giving 575 days to the parties, as per amended Act 3 of 2020. Such extension of time was given keeping in mind that a landlord or tenant, who did not enter into any written agreement, must be given sufficient time to sit, deliberate and agree upon mutual terms and conditions in relation to the tenancy. To be put it in other words, the Act came into force on 22.02.2019. After successive amendments, it provides 575 days for the parties to enter into a written agreement setting out the terms and conditions of tenancy. However, notwithstanding the extension of time under the Act, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 21, the landlord has filed the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019 on 17.09.2019, before the Rent Controller. Even as on that date, as per the amended Act 3 of 2010, time was very much available for the tenant to enter into an agreement with the landlord. While so, it cannot be construed, at any stretch of imagination, that for non-compliance of time limit set out under Section 4 of the Act, the tenant has to be evicted or the landlord is entitled for repossession. Even otherwise, the tenant, under Ex.R1, has categorically stated that they are ready and willing to enter into an agreement and required https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the landlord to furnish a copy of the draft agreement of tenancy. Though Ex.R1 dated 22.04.2019 was sent by the tenant in response to the notice dated 28.03.2019, even before receipt of the reply dated 22.04.2019, the landlord terminated the tenancy, by a notice dated 19.04.2019, from 13.04.2019. It is needless to mention that when once the landlord terminated the tenancy, the tenant cannot, thereafter, be expected to seek the landlord to come forward to execute an agreement, rather, he will only seek to question the manner in which the tenancy was terminated. In the present case, the tenant did not question the termination, but approached the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned by sending a letter under Ex.R2, seeking indulgence. In the meantime, the landlord has swiftly preferred the Original Petition before the Rent Controller, claiming re-possession. In any event, when the time limit for executing a written agreement was very much available as on the date when the termination notice was sent by the landlord or when he filed the RLTOP No. 91 of 2019, this Court is of the view that the gay-abandon with which the landlord has rushed to the Rent Controller Court cannot be countenanced. Therefore, this Court holds that repossession of the tenanted premises is not warranted for non-compliance of Section 4 of the Act by the Tenant.