Madras HC Rejects Salon Tenant’s Bid To Block Tamil Nadu Rent Act Eviction Case Over Pre-2017 Oral Tenancy

The petitioner’s grandfather became a tenant of the shop premises under an oral tenancy predating the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

After his grandfather’s death, the petitioner continued the tenancy.

The respondent purchased the property in 2016, and the petitioner later paid rent to him, but no written tenancy agreement was executed.

Following alleged non-payment of rent and the petitioner’s failure to execute a written agreement, the respondent sought eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.

The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the eviction proceeding and sought to have it struck off, relying on S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph [2022 SCC OnLine Mad 958].

Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, and its proviso, as considered in S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph, permit a landlord to invoke Section 21(2)(a) where a tenancy predating the Act continued without a written agreement; category 2 of S. Muruganandam concerns such pre-Act oral tenancies.

By contrast, categories 5 and 6 concern tenancies created after commencement of the Act—respectively, agreements that expired before the eviction petition and oral tenancies—and the decision states that landlords in those categories must pursue remedies under the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court found that the tenancy originated orally before the 2017 Act and continued after the respondent purchased the property, without any written agreement being executed before or after the Act commenced.

It therefore held that the case did not fall within categories 5 or 6, which concern post-Act tenancies, but squarely within category 2 of S. Muruganandam.

Under that category, Section 21(2)(a), read with Section 4(2) and its proviso, was available to the landlord.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had relied on category 2 before the Rent Court but advanced a different position in the revision.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.