Building age and condition are irrelevant for eviction sought for reconstruction under the TNRRRLT Act.

The Respondents (Landlords) initiated eviction proceedings (R.L.T.O.P. No.1 of 2021) against the original tenant, Anbalagan, regarding two shops in Chidambaram

The eviction was sought on grounds of default in rent payment and the requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction

The Tenant contested the claim, asserting there was no default and that the building was not in a dilapidated condition

During the pendency of the enquiry, the Tenant filed I.A. No.17 of 2022 seeking the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to assess the age and nature of the property

The Rent Court dismissed the application on February 1, 2023, stating that an Advocate-Commissioner could not assess the age of the building without a qualified engineer

Following the death of the Tenant, his legal representatives (Petitioners) challenged this dismissal through the present Civil Revision Petition

The Court primarily applied Section 21(2)(e) read with Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017

Under this statutory framework, the "age and condition" of the rented property is rendered irrelevant for the purpose of demolition, renovation, or reconstruction

The core principle established is that if a landlord desires to improve or reconstruct the property and is ready to commence work, the Rent Court may grant the order regardless of the building's physical state

The High Court observed that the legal landscape regarding eviction for reconstruction shifted significantly with the enactment of the 2017 Act.

Unlike the previous rent control regime, Section 21(2)(e) and Section 26 of the New Act do not mandate that a building be "old and dilapidated" to justify eviction for reconstruction

The Court reasoned that since the age and condition of the premises are no longer significant factors, the tenant’s defense regarding the building’s stability is legally inconsequential

Consequently, the Court found that there was no necessity to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner or a qualified engineer to inspect the property, as their findings would not impact the outcome of the eviction petition under the current law

The Court noted that while the Rent Court's specific reasoning (regarding the need for an engineer) was not entirely justifiable, the ultimate dismissal of the interlocutory application was correct in law

The Court held that under the 2017 Act, the condition and age of the property are irrelevant to the landlord’s right to seek eviction for demolition and reconstruction

Therefore, the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for such assessment is unnecessary

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed