Madras High Court rules Rent Authority under 2017 Act cannot fix fair rent or proceed against a tenant already ordered evicted under the old law

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed that decision and ordered eviction on the grounds of wilful default and owner’s occupation, while dismissing the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

The tenant challenged the appellate order in revision. The Court was also informed that the landlord had obtained a fair-rent order from the Rent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

At the hearing, the tenant sought time to vacate and offered undertakings concerning rent, delivery of possession and non-subletting; the landlord agreed to the requested time and sought permission to clear vegetation and conduct soil tests on adjoining land.

Whether the Appellate Authority’s eviction order, based on wilful default and owner’s occupation, disclosed any illegality, perversity or other basis for interference in revision

Whether the Rent Authority’s 28 March 2024 fair-rent order under the 2017 Act was sustainable

Whether the tenant should be granted time to vacate subject to undertakings and payment of rent

The Court considered Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which respectively provide grounds for eviction based on wilful default, the landlord’s requirement for own occupation, and demolition and reconstruction.

It applied the revisional standard under Section 25 of that Act, holding that interference was not warranted absent illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence.

Under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the Court held that the Rent Authority lacked power to fix fair rent and that Section 2(n)’s definition of “tenant” excludes a person against whom an eviction order has already been passed.

The Court found no misappreciation of evidence or perversity in the Appellate Authority’s findings on wilful default and owner’s occupation, and therefore saw no basis to interfere under Section 25.

It separately set aside the fair-rent order because, in its view, the Rent Authority had no authority to fix fair rent and the landlord could not invoke the 2017 Act against a tenant who had suffered an eviction order under the former Act.

In balancing the tenant’s request for time against the landlord’s position, the Court accepted the proposed period to vacate, subject to payment of rent and undertakings, while permitting work on the adjoining area without disturbing the tenant’s occupied portion or bathroom.

The tenant was required to file an undertaking within one week, pay rent as directed, refrain from subletting, and vacate and hand over possession by 31 January 2027. If the undertaking was not filed, the landlord could proceed with execution without the tenant receiving that additional time.

No costs were awarded, and the connected C.M.P. was closed.