Tenant Must Vacate By Dec 31: Madras HC Upholds Eviction For Failure To Enter Written Tenancy Agreement After 575 Days

The landlords sought eviction under Sections 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, alleging failure to enter into a written tenancy agreement and default in payment of rent.

The tenant disputed maintainability under Section 21(2)(a), arguing that the statutory period for entering into an agreement had expired without either party taking steps, and also disputed the claimed rent.

The Rent Court ordered eviction under Section 21(2)(a), but dismissed the claim based on rent default; the Rent Tribunal affirmed the eviction order.

No oral evidence was adduced.

In revision under Article 227, the tenant relied, among other things, on the Division Bench decision in Hemalatha v. Jeevanantham and sought dismissal of the petition or a reference to a Division Bench.

Section 4(2) of the 2017 Act requires the parties to enter into a tenancy agreement within the prescribed period; the Court noted that the period had successively been 90, 275 and 575 days.

Section 21(2)(a) provides a ground for recovery of possession where the parties have failed to enter into the required tenancy agreement.

The Court held that the cause of action for such failure arises after the prescribed period expires, and that expiry does not bar a subsequent eviction application.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in S.R. Venkatesh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court’s order in V. Ganesh v. S. Balaji, and the principle in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra concerning conflicting precedents and binding authority.

The Court treated Hemalatha v. Jeevanantham as per incuriam in light of the authorities it considered controlling.

The Court found no merit in the tenant’s contention that the landlords’ application became unavailable once the 575-day period expired.

On its reading of Sections 4(2) and 21(2)(a), the statutory period marks the time within which an agreement must be made; failure to make one gives rise to the cause of action after that period ends.

The Court considered the issue settled by the authorities it identified, including V. Ganesh, and declined to follow Hemalatha, which it had treated as per incuriam.

It also rejected the request to await or join the Dilip Solanki reference, concluding that the issue was no longer unresolved for the purposes of this revision.

It directed the tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession by 31 December 2026, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected civil miscellaneous petition.