The Madras High Court ruled that under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, landlords within the state can’t evict their tenants via quick-song tactics if they didn’t enter into written tenancy agreements after the regulation went into effect on February 22, 2019, and registered those agreements with the Rent Authority (a state government-appointed officer).
Justice R. Subramanian also ruled that if a tenancy agreement had ended after the 2017 Act took effect, the owner should file eviction litigation with the Rent Courts within six months of the agreement’s expiration. Those who fail to do so within the challenge period may have no choice but to approach the ordinary civil courts and apply the general law-The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 to evict their tenants.
The courtroom ruled that the 2017 Act’s advantages could no longer be claimed if the written agreements had not been registered with the Rent Authorities and if any oral settlement had been established between the owner and the renter after the regulation became effective. However, he ruled that those who engaged in oral agreements before the 2017 Act’s entry into force may be able to evict their tenants under the new law.
The judge agreed with P.B. Balaji’s proposal that oral agreements were considered in both the overall regulation and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, which preceded the 2017 regulation. In addition, Section 34 of the 2017 Act requires Rent Courts to take into account the requirements of the 1882 Act, the Indian Contract Act of 1872, and/or any other significant statute relevant to the subject.
People who entered into oral agreements earlier than the 2017 Act and did not enter into a written agreement after it became effective, as well as people whose written tenancy agreements had expired earlier than the 2017 Act became effective, should apply to the Rent Courts under the new rule, seeking eviction of their tenants on the grounds of failing to agree. The new (2017) Act gives the owner the right to sue for repossession even if he is not at fault and is the cause of non-renewal or refusal to enter into a written settlement agreement. It isn’t always open to a tenant to argue that the owner did not complete an agreement in writing despite his request, and so the owner can’t apply Section 21(2)(a) in search of repossession.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are for informational purposes only based on industry reports and related news stories. PropertyPistol does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information and shall not be held responsible for any action taken based on the published information.