TP Act Enables Oral Lease; Requirement Of Registered Agreement Under 2017 TN Act Not Of Universal Application: Madras High Court

Answering a set of questions pertaining to the diverging scenarios that might occur in the eviction of tenants under Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, Madras High Court has held that legal recourse on oral tenancies after the commencement of the Act can be availed only through civil courts and not the rent courts under the new act.Justice R. Subramanian observed that the civil revision petitions that have come up before him, since the rent courts rejected all of them by citing the issue of maintainability, can be broadly classified into six types. The rent courts deemed all of these petitions as not maintainable by observing that there is no registered written agreement of tenancy in all six cases which are as follows:i. Written tenancy created prior to and expired prior to the commencement of the Act (Tenant holding over under an oral tenancy);ii. Oral tenancies created prior to the New Act and no written agreement entered into;iii. Written tenancies created prior to the New Act and the period expired after the commencement of the Act.iv. Written tenancies entered after the commencement of the New Act not registered but subsisting;v. Written tenancies created after the commencement of the New Act and had presently expired (either registered or unregistered)vi. Oral tenancies created after the New ActBefore addressing each of these scenarios, the court observed that Section 34 of the New Act requires the court to take into account the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Indian Contract Act 1872, or any other substantive Law applicable same as in a hypothetical situation where such dispute was brought in front of a regular civil court for adjudication. The court referred to Section 34 specifically since Section 40 of the Act places a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts if it comes within the purview of the New Act. Similarly, rent courts are restrained from ascertaining the issue of title and ownership of property in question.The court observed that the requirement of a registered instrument of lease in order to enable creation of a landlord-tenant relationship as given in Section 4(2) of the New Act 'cannot be said to be universal in its application'."...Therefore, a suit or proceeding which falls outside the provisions of the New Act are not barred. The scope of a bar created under a special enactment was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Periyathambi Goundan v. The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore and others, reported in 1980 (2) MLJ 89, wherein the Full Bench had held that the scope of the bar are interdict imposed by a provision of law must be strictly construed and the Court must ascertain the extent of the interdict imposed by the provision of the statute and limit the interdict to that extent alone."The court observed that the bar applies only to any of the proceedings that come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the rent court by virtue of the provisions of the new Act. According to the court, it cannot be said that a suit for eviction or recovery by the landlord is barred for not falling under the scenarios envisaged in Section 21(2) of the new Act when the same section is read along with Section 34. The court pointed out that Section 34 requires that due regard be given to other provisions in other acts that are applicable and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act recognises oral lease/ unregistered instrument of lease that creates rights and liabilities except when the lease is for a term exceeding an year. Special reference was also made to Sengappan v. Arumbatha Veda Vinayagar Temple, rep its Hereditary Trustee (2000) wherein it was held that even an unregistered sale deed for a term beyond one year can be examined as evidence to ascertain the question of possession. Referring to V.Manimegalai v. Selvaraj Kannan (2019), the court also opined that there is no hard and fast rule about 'no lease without registered instrument' before the commencement of the Act in light of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act. Relying on the case of V. Manimegalai, the court opined that the New Act does not make the non-registration of the lease agreement alone as a ground to prevent the landlord from seeking a remedy before the Rent Court.Section 4(2) of the New Act imposes an obligation on the parties to an existing oral lease agreement to enter into an agreement evidencing the terms of the tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of the commencement of this Act. Proviso to S. 4(2) allows either the landlord or the tenant to seek termination of tenancy under Clause (a) of Section 21(2).Section 21(2) (a) enables the landlord to seek relief in terms of repossession of land based on the failure of tenant or landlord to enter into a written agreement of tenancy and the caveat of 545 days after the commencement of the Act will apply to the first two instances, the court added. The other clauses in...

TP Act Enables Oral Lease; Requirement Of Registered Agreement Under 2017 TN Act Not Of Universal Application: Madras High Court

Sebin James

Eviction Proceedings Arising Out Of Oral Tenancies/ Written Instruments Created Before 2017 Act Maintainable Before Rent Courts

Tags