T. PREMKUMAR vs RAMESH KUMAR JAIN

CRP No. 1394 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 24-08-2026
DELIVERED ON : 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CRP No. 1394 of 2023
AND
CMP NO. 9342 OF 2023
T. Premkumar
S/o. Late. E. Thirunavukarasu, Proprietor of
Midland Saloon, No. 65, Jeremiah Road, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Ramesh Kumar Jain
S/o. Late. Sri Champalal Jain, Shree Centre IV
Floor, Old No. 130, Mint Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai - 600 079.
..Respondent(s)
CMP No. 9342 of 2023
T. Premkumar
S/o. Late. E. Thirunavukarasu, Proprietor of
Midland Saloon, No. 65, Jeremiah Road, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Ramesh Kumar Jain
S/o. Late. Sri Champalal Jain, Shree Centre IV
Floor, Old No. 130, Mint Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai - 600 079.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 1394 of 2023
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
strike off the application in R.L.T.O.P No. 683 of 2022 pending on the file of
the XII Small Causes Court, Rent Court, Chennai.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRP No. 1394 of 2023
CRP No. 1394 of 2023
For Petitioner(s): M/.S.Gopika Nambiar
For Respondent(s): Respondent-Served-No appearance
Order
(1) 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.
(2) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their
ranking in the Civil Revision Petition.
(3) 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
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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.
(4) 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
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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.
(5) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the
materials placed on record.
(6) The short point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is
whether the RLTOP is liable to be struck off?
(7) When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation
for the respondent, though he was served notice.
(8) 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
th th
5 and 6 categories referred in S.Muruganandam’s case and therefore,
as per the aforesaid judgment, the landlord cannot seek remedy under the
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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.
(9) 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
th th
under the 5 and 6 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
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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.’’
(10) 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.
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRP No. 1394 of 2023
(11) 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
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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.
(12) 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.
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRP No. 1394 of 2023
(13) 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.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

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
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )