Tenant may remain in possession until the specific-performance suit is decided, despite confirmation of the eviction order.

The landlord sought recovery of possession under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

The Rent Court dismissed the application, finding that the landlord had not established a landlord–tenant relationship concerning a building or superstructure.

On appeal, the Rent Tribunal reversed and ordered eviction.

The tenant’s case was that the lease concerned vacant land and that he had put up the shed; the landlord claimed that the shed was his.

A suit for specific performance concerning an alleged sale agreement between the parties was pending.

The tenant challenged the Tribunal’s order under Article 227.

Whether the Rent Tribunal was justified in ordering eviction without determining whether the tenancy concerned vacant land alone or land together with a superstructure

Whether the tenant could remain in possession pending disposal of the specific-performance suit, notwithstanding the eviction order

Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, was invoked as the basis for the landlord’s recovery-of-possession application.

The Court treated the nature of the leased subject matter—vacant land alone or land with a building or superstructure—as material to the Rent Court’s consideration under the Act.

The Court found that the Tribunal had focused on whether a tenancy existed and had accepted the landlord’s case because there was no written lease, but had failed to decide what was leased.

That omission was significant because the tenant specifically asserted that the land was vacant when let, and the landlord’s witness admitted that the tenant had put up the superstructure and obtained the electricity connection at his own cost.

Although the Court considered the Rent Court’s reasoning on this issue justified, it noted that the tenant did not dispute being a lessee, subject to the outcome of the specific-performance suit.

In light of those circumstances, it confirmed the eviction order but made its effect contingent on the outcome of that suit.

The tenant was permitted to remain in possession until the specific-performance suit was decided, which the trial court was directed to dispose of by 31 January 2027.

If the tenant succeeded in that suit, the eviction order would become ineffective; if the suit was dismissed, the landlord could execute the eviction order to recover possession.

The landlord could withdraw rent arrears deposited through March 2026, and the tenant was directed to pay subsequent monthly rent of ₹18,320 directly to the landlord.