MOHANA Vs. RAMEESA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in RLTOP No.3 of 2020 has come forward with this revision petition, challenging an order of the Rent Court passed in M.P.No.1 of 2021, rejecting his plea on the issue of the very maintainability of RLTOP. To provide the factual backdrop, the respondents/landlords have earlier instituted RCOP No.286 of 2018 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Sec. 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hence forth will be referred to as Old Act). Besides this, there are other suit/proceedings between the parties, which are not very germane for the current purpose. On 5/9/2019, RCOP No.286 of 2018 came to be dismissed for default. In between, on 22/2/2019, the old Act was replaced by the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2019 (hereinafter would be referred to as the New Act). Subsequently, the landlords have laid the present RLTOP No.3 of 2020 seeking eviction of the tenant that there is no the rent agreement between the landlords and the tenant registered with the Rent Authority is available, a ground provided under Sec.21(2)(a) of the Act.

(2.) The contention of the revision petitioner /tenant is that in terms of Sec. 47(2) of the New Act, in all situations where an eviction proceedings under the old Act was dismissed for default, the only option open to the landlord is to restore the said proceedings, and seek the leave of the Rent Controller for a switch over to the New Act. In the context of this case it would mean that the landlords, if they are keen to invoke the provisions of the new Act, should first engage in reviving RCOP No.286 of 2018, and then go through the switch-over route as provided under Sec.47(2) of the New Act. To state it differently, a landlord who does not follow Sec.47(2) route is barred from invoking the provisions of the New Act. This argument was rejected by the learned Rent Court. This has brought the tenant before this Court with this revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was seen in her relentless best in emphasising the sustainability of the very contention which the tenant had advanced before the Rent Court. The efforts of the learned counsel however, struggled to persuade this Court, as it, in the view of this Court, roamed outside the borders of the legislative space which Sec.47(2) of the new Act has created. Sec. 47 of the new Act reads: