K. LOKANATHA RAO Vs. E.N. HARINATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 23/11/2022 passed in R.L.T.A. No.26 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai [Rent Tribunal, Chennai] confirming the Fair and Decreetal Order passed in R.L.T.O.P. No. 454 of 2020, dtd. 9/12/2021 by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai [Rent Court, Chennai]

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: Originally a Petition in R.L.T.O.P. No.454 of 2020 has been filed by the Respondent/Landlord under Ss. 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d) & 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act] for repossession of the tenanted premises on the ground of failure to enter into an agreement, default in payment of rent, misuse of premises and own use and occupation against the Petitioner/Tenant. Before the Trial Court, on either side, no Witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the documents, the Rent Court allowed the Application under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the Act and the Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and handover the same to the Respondent within one month from the date of Order passed in the said R.L.T.O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner/Tenant had filed an Appeal in R.L.T.A. No.26 of 2022 before the Appellate Authority. After considering the agreements the Appellate Authority had dismissed the Appeal. Challenging the same, the Petitioner/Tenant had filed the present Revision before this Court

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the Tenant originally under the father of the Respondent, namely, Mr. Nara Singh in the year 1986 in respect of a small building consisting of ground and first floor on a Monthly Rent of Rs.3,500..00 After the death of the said Nara Singh, the Petitioner is paying Monthly Rent to the Respondent. The present Monthly Rent is Rs.1,00,000.00 p.m. apart from electricity charges. The Respondent and his family informed the Petitioner that there is no need to enter into Lease Agreement as the same is not required under the old law and thus Petitioner continued the tenancy by paying the rent to them. Even after the commencement of this Act, the Respondent did not issue any notice, letter or orally, calling upon the Petitioner to enter into agreement. The Petitioner is always willing to enter into agreement and he has never evaded to enter into agreement.