'A roof over your head' has always been described as a core necessity for every individual. The importance of housing is evinced from the fact that it is judicially read into, as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and is also envisioned as directive principle of state policy, under Articles 38, 39(b) and 41 of the Constitution.

Rent legislation in Tamil Nadu traces its lineage to the erstwhile Madras Presidency, where rent laws essentially emerged as an emergency response to wartime exigencies. During the period of the Second World War, acute scarcity of housing and the risk of arbitrary evictions necessitated regulatory intervention, which prompted the colonial government to promulgate the Rent Control Order of 1941, as a temporary measure to curb unreasonable eviction of tenants and to regulate rents. This measure, though conceived as transient, was extended periodically in view of continuing necessity.

Over the years, the state has witnessed many new regimes and laws in this sphere, including the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This Act ultimately gave way on 22/2/2019 to an overhauling enactment, which comprehensively deals with the all kinds of rent matters in the state of Tamil Nadu, called the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2017. [TNRRRLT Act].

This new regime discarded several pivotal concepts that existed in the previous rent control laws, such as the legal sanction for oral tenancies, fixation of fair rental values by the court, and the determination of rent was left to the market value by virtue of an the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The new TNRRRLT Act also made written rental agreements and its registration a mandatory precondition for claiming reliefs purported under the scheme of the said act. Moreover, distinct grounds were brought about under Section 21 [2] for a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant under this new regimen.

However, it would be apt to state that this new law has led to more ambivalence, than to serve its actual purpose of providing clarity, especially regarding the registration aspect of tenancy agreements. The Rent Courts in Tamil Nadu have expressed conflicting opinions as to whether registration of the tenancy under the scheme of the TNRRRLT Act can be construed a sine-qua-non for the purpose of seeking reliefs under the said Act.

TO REGISTER OR NOT, THAT IS THE QUESTION?

The mandatory registration requirement under the TNRRRLT Act became the single most litigated and yet, most inconsistently decided question under the Act. What ensued from here, is a five-judgment sequence in which the Madras High Court repeatedly revisited the question, each time narrowing or widening the field, before a Division Bench finally closed the debate.

1. In a first of its kind, in the case of V. Manimegalai versus Selvaraj Kannan, the Court held that the object and purpose of registration was to only validate the document, i.e., the rental agreement, for the purpose of evidence, and the registration requirement under the Act, meant no further than that. This, in essence meant that any case which fell within the contours of Section 21 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, irrespective of registration, could be filed under the scheme of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 and the rent courts were bound to entertain the same.

2. The Madras High Court had further expounded upon this proposition of law in the case of Muruganandam versus Joseph. In this case, the Court upheld the position of law as laid down in the Manimeghalai's case, with certain caveats. The Court divided tenancies into three categories, viz., a) subsisting tenancies, b) tenancies by holding over i.e,. Within the 6-month period after expiry of the tenancy agreement by efflux of time and c) tenancies that extend beyond this 6-month period.

For scenario (a) and (b), irrespective of whether the rental agreements are registered under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, the Court clarified that landlord could take recourse to all provisions under the TNRRRLT Act, under Section 21(2) except for (a). It is to be noted that Section 21(2)(a) of the Act dealt with repossession of the premises by the landlord on the ground of failure to enter into a written agreement, in consonance with the Act. Furthermore, the Court held that for tenancies falling beyond the holding over period of 6 months, approaching civil courts was the only remedy.

However, the incertitude was caused by the flow chart that was appended to the said judgment, which diametrically contradicted the recitals, by stating that all scenarios mentioned above, (a), (b) and (c) were directed to go to civil court directly, without any distinction. Some rent courts were reflexively dismissing cases pertaining to unregistered agreements based on the flow chart and directed litigants to approach civil courts, while, on the other hand, other Courts were granting reliefs based on the recitals of the judgment. The result was precisely the judicial inconsistency the judgment had set out to cure.

1. Subsequent to this judgment, two further single-judge rulings pushed the pendulum back toward tenants and landlords with unregistered agreements. Firstly the case of Padmavathy and Another versus Amudha Pearls and another where the Court stated that even in the cases that pertained to unregistered rental agreements, relief could be sought for, by the landlord under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act also, as an unregistered agreement meant that the rental agreement was in absentia in terms of the Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 and therefore, relief could be sought for under this provision. This dictum was followed by the Madras High Court in the case of K. Shaik Fareed versus Zeenath Nisha and Another. Both these judgments, in essence, expanded the scope of the Muruganandham judgment, by holding that all grounds under Section 21(2) of the TNRRRLT Act were available to a landlord, seeking eviction of the tenant under the said section, irrespective of registration.

However, not every rent court interpreted the law in this manner. Some Courts altogether took a narrower view and rejected applications filed under any other sub-clauses of Section 21(2) of the Act, except for Section 21(2)(a), reasoning that since Padmavathy states that unregistered agreements were no agreement in the eyes of the Act, only applications under Section 21(2)(a) could be entertained by rent courts for eviction of a tenant by the landlord. This was, on a fair reading of Muruganandam, a misnomer, but the confusion was understandable, given the flowchart problem described above, which directed all unregistered agreement holders to approach civil courts, and this produced yet another layer of inconsistency across rent courts statewide.

THE DIVISION BENCH STEPS IN

This noise has now been finally settled by the Madras High Court, by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Hemalatha versus Jeevanantham and 3 Others. In this case, the Court has authoritatively held that registration of a tenancy agreement under the letter of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 is a rigid gate-pass, without which the doors of justice under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 remain shut for any litigant seeking relief under the Act. The Court also held that this would obviously not mean that the parties having unregistered agreements were left remediless, and they could always utilize the common law and approach civil courts for seeking appropriate reliefs and remedies. However, the proceedings currently pending before rent courts have been ring fenced by the Court, stating that this judgment will not hinder those proceedings and the same may be decided on their respective merits.

The reasoning given by the Court in the Hemalatha judgment, is that the intention of the legislature under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 was to extend mandatory registration, within a certain window frame to all tenancy agreements, which is evinced by transient provisions such as Section 21(2)(a) and therefore, this leniency cannot be extended indefinitely, beyond the period intended by the Legislature.

The Hemalatha judgment has thus, brought to halt all the parley as to when the provisions of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 can be invoked by a litigant. The reasoning given by the Division Bench is also in line with the object and purpose of the legislation, which is to provide for faster and effective adjudication of tenancy disputes. Quicker adjudication necessarily entails the adoption of a summary procedure for resolution of disputes, rather than subjecting the parties to a protracted trial. In this context, the registration requirement serves as a catalyst, as a registered tenancy agreement carries with it a presumption of authenticity and legitimacy, thereby obviating the need for the Court to expend considerable judicial time in independently validating the very existence and terms of the tenancy.

Although the rigors of registration may cause hiccups initially to many tenants and landlords in Tamil Nadu today, who largely operate out of an unregistered set-up, there is hope that the registration process, which is less onerous and fairly simple [unlike regular documentary registrations] will slowly seep into the system. This will eventually bring on board a lot more veracity and legitimacy to the summary trial process before the rent courts and will ensure that judicial time is not wasted in the arduous process of document authentication, which in turn, will benefit the litigants, in the larger scheme of things.

This has also brought a heave of relief to all litigants, who pay about 3% of the yearly rent as court fees, in the fond hope of getting some relief in the rental courts, but unfortunately get their cases dismissed due to some technical interpretation differences by different rent courts. Hemalatha thus, brings a five-year run of inconsistency to a close, and gives the Tamil Nadu Bar something it has lacked since 2019- a settled answer to when the provisions of TNRRRLT Act can be invoked at all.

The Author is an Advocate practicing at Madras High Court and other Tribunals and Courts in the state of Tamil Nadu. Views are personal.