RAJIV JEWELLERS Vs. R. ROOP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of the Rent Appellate Tribunal reversing the order of the Rent Court dismissing the application for eviction filed by the landlord under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act"), the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) Brief background of the case is as follows :

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that, as fair rent has already been fixed under Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act"), rent cannot be changed thereafter as per Sec. 5 of the old Act. Therefore, demanding extra rent after the new Act came into force, cannot be permitted in the eye of law. It is his contention that the landlord, at the most, is entitled to enter into an agreement quoting the fair rent already fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings in C.R.P.No.1162 of 2011. According to him, this Court in Ramesh Salunkhe v. Pramila Jain [C.R.P.(NPD) No.1996 of 2021, dtd. 25/1/2022], has clearly held that the landlord cannot enhance the rent higher than the existing rent. According to the learned counsel, Sec. 4(2) of the new Act makes it clear that the parties are required to enter into an agreement in writing with regard to "that tenancy". The word "that tenancy" indicates only the existing rate of rent. Therefore, it is his contention that the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.