-
by sayum
05 November 2026 2:10 PM
"The mere fact that a tenant was ready to enter into a fresh agreement and it was only the landlord, who was avoiding the same, would be no avail and prevent the landlord from seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act." Madras High Court, in a ruling dated August 31, 2026, held that an eviction petition filed by a landlord under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants (TNRRRLT) Act, 2017, is maintainable even if initiated before the expiry of the 575-day statutory period provided for entering into a written tenancy agreement.
Justice P.B. Balaji observed that a tenant cannot utilize the non-expiry of the transition period as a defensive shield when there is an admitted failure to execute a tenancy agreement, regardless of which party was responsible for the non-execution.
The petitioner-landlord sought recovery of possession of a commercial premise in Chrompet, Chennai, under Section 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(c) of the TNRRRLT Act, citing the respondent’s failure to execute a written tenancy agreement. While the Rent Court initially ordered eviction, the Rent Tribunal reversed this decision, agreeing with the tenant’s contention that the petition was premature as the statutory period of 575 days for transitioning into a written agreement had not elapsed.
The primary question before the court was whether a landlord is precluded from invoking Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act for recovery of possession if the petition is instituted prior to the expiry of the 575-day period prescribed for formalizing a tenancy agreement. The court also addressed the relevance of divergent judicial precedents and the prospective applicability of recent Division Bench rulings regarding mandatory registration of agreements.
Maintainability of Premature Petitions
The court reiterated that the legislative intent behind the TNRRRLT Act does not confer an absolute right upon a tenant to occupy premises for the full duration of the 575-day transition window if no agreement is forthcoming. Relying on settled precedents, including Habeeb Hardware v. M.D. Gajarajakumar and R. Mangilal Ranka v. S. Shohan Singh, the court held that the absence of a written agreement provides the necessary cause of action for eviction.
"The mere fact that a tenant was ready to enter into a fresh agreement and it was only the landlord, who was avoiding the same, would be no avail and prevent the landlord from seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act."
Application of Division Bench Rulings
Addressing the respondents' reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Hemalatha v. Jeevanantham, the court noted that the ruling in Hemalatha was intended to operate prospectively. Consequently, it could not be applied to revise or nullify pending matters where the petition had already been instituted. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the view taken in Hemalatha appeared to be in direct conflict with earlier Division Bench rulings and the Supreme Court’s order in V. Ganesh v. S. Balaji.
Prospective Nature of Judicial Rulings
The court highlighted that the Division Bench in Hemalatha explicitly recognized the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, ensuring that non-registration issues do not disturb matters already sub judice before Rent Authorities or Tribunals. By applying this logic, the court held that the petitioner’s claim could not be defeated by subsequent interpretive shifts in the law.
"The question of non-registration shall not be reopened in respect of cases pending before the Rent Authority, the Appellate Authority or even in revision."
Concluding that the Rent Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the statutory timelines, the High Court set aside the appellate order. The order of the Rent Court directing recovery of possession was restored, with the court granting the respondents time until November 30, 2026, to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the landlord.
Date of Decision: 31 August 2026
