Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Non-Registration of Tenancy Invites Eviction, Dual Ownership No Bar to Landlord's Rights: Madras High Court

30 November 2024 8:55 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by S. Mohanraj challenging the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and Rent Appellate Authority. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, presiding over the case, reaffirmed that non-registration of tenancy agreements under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) constitutes a valid ground for eviction under Section 21(2)(a).

Further, the Court delved into complex issues of dual ownership under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and clarified the scope of Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act concerning religious properties.

The case stemmed from an eviction application filed by the respondents, who contended that the tenancy agreement with the petitioner was not registered as mandated by the TNRRRLT Act. Both the Rent Controller and the Rent Appellate Authority ordered eviction based on this statutory non-compliance.

"The failure to register the tenancy agreement under the TNRRRLT Act is a clear violation of statutory requirements, making eviction inevitable under Section 21(2)(a). Compliance with this statutory mandate cannot be circumvented."

The Court referenced the decision in M/s. Vacher Mills Stores v. K. Gunasekaran, which upheld eviction for similar non-compliance, stating:
"The Act aims to streamline landlord-tenant relationships through mandatory agreements. Failure to register an agreement, irrespective of the reasons, invites eviction."

The petitioner claimed ownership of the property through a mortgage deed allegedly executed by the respondents’ predecessor. The Court dismissed this contention, invoking Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which precludes tenants from challenging the landlord’s title.

"Once a person is inducted as a tenant, they are estopped from denying the landlord’s title. Without credible evidence of the purported mortgage, the petitioner’s claim lacks merit."

The petitioner argued that the property fell under Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act, exempting religious or charitable properties from the Act’s purview. It was contended that the land belonged to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. The Court rejected this argument, noting the dual ownership of the property under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, 1963.

"The concept of dual ownership under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act recognizes separate ownership of the superstructure and the land. Here, the building belongs to the respondents, while the land belongs to HR&CE. As long as HR&CE’s rights remain unaffected, eviction by the landlord is valid."

Quoting the Supreme Court in R. Manicka Naicker v. E. Elumalai Naicker, the Court stated:
"Section 13 does not effect a statutory transfer of land to the owner of the building. Where dual ownership exists, eviction proceedings concerning the superstructure can proceed independently of the landowner’s rights."

Recognizing the petitioner’s request for time to vacate, the Court granted six months for voluntary handover of the premises, contingent on the petitioner’s undertaking. 
"In view of the petitioner’s undertaking, this Court grants six months’ time to vacate the premises, during which no execution proceedings shall be initiated."

This judgment reaffirms key principles governing landlord-tenant relationships and property ownership under Tamil Nadu’s statutory framework:

Mandatory Registration: Non-registration of tenancy agreements under the TNRRRLT Act invites eviction, underscoring the Act’s stringent compliance requirements.
Dual Ownership Doctrine: The ruling clarifies the coexistence of separate ownership of land and superstructure, enabling landlords to assert tenancy rights independently of the landowner.
Estoppel of Tenants: Tenants are barred from contesting the landlord’s title once inducted into possession, strengthening landlords’ claims in eviction disputes.
Religious Properties Exemption: Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act does not preclude eviction for properties under dual ownership, provided the landowner’s rights are preserved.

Date of Decision: November 25, 2024
 

Latest Legal News