Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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
 

Similar News