-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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