An eviction decree ends tenant status, barring subsequent fair-rent proceedings under the 1960 Act.

The petitioner was a tenant of premises owned by the respondents. In 2002, the landlord sued for possession and damages for use and occupation; a decree for possession was upheld on appeal and in second appeal, and the tenant was subsequently evicted in execution.

The landlord’s mesne-profits application was dismissed for non-prosecution. In 2013, after the possession decree, the landlord filed RCOP No. 86 of 2013 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking fair rent of Rs. 2,93,000 per month. The Rent Controller fixed that amount, and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order. The tenant challenged those concurrent orders in revision.

Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 defines “tenant” to include a person continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy; Section 4 provides for fixation of fair rent.

In K.V. Nayak v. Mrs. Chandra Devasagayam, 1988 (2) LW 99, this Court held that an ejectment decree ends the relationship between the parties and that the person against whom it is passed no longer falls within Section 2(8).

The Court also considered Heera Traders v. Kamala Jain, (2022) 18 SCC 233, which held that, after an eviction order or decree for possession, the former tenant’s continued occupation is wrongful or unlawful; although that case arose under the Madhya Pradesh statute, the Court treated the principle as consistent with K.V. Nayak.

The possession decree had been passed before the landlord filed the fair-rent petition, and the petitioner had ultimately been evicted in execution. Applying K.V. Nayak, the Court held that the petitioner no longer qualified as a “tenant” under Section 2(8) after the ejectment decree; Section 4 therefore could not be invoked to fix fair rent against him.

The fact that the Rent Control Act had not been extended to Poonamallee when the possession suit was filed did not make a later fair-rent petition maintainable.

The Court also noted that the landlord had sought damages for use and occupation in the possession suit at the contractual rent, but that claim had not been diligently pursued. Nevertheless, the petitioner remained liable for contractual rent of Rs. 4,000 per month for the period of occupation.

It directed the petitioner to pay any outstanding contractual rent at Rs. 4,000 per month within eight weeks from receipt of the order; there was no order as to costs.