Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision petition filed by the tenant, E.Mohan Raj, against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Court (X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) and the Rent Tribunal (XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai). The landlord, L.Fukokuvaleyanstic Anandh, had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 as amended by Act 39 of 2018) on the ground that there was no valid written tenancy agreement as required under Section 4 of the Act. The tenant contended that the lease was a lump-sum lease (Othi) amounting to a mortgage, not a regular lease, and that the Rent Court lacked jurisdiction. The tenant also claimed readiness to vacate but disputed liability for damages. The Rent Court and Rent Tribunal concurrently found that the tenant was a tenant and ordered eviction. The High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, examined the orders and found no perversity or infirmity in the concurrent findings. The court noted that the tenant's argument regarding the nature of the lease was not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. The court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the eviction order. The court also observed that the tenant had filed a separate suit (O.S.No.5981 of 2025) and the landlord had filed O.S.No.5099 of 2025, which were pending before other courts. The High Court did not interfere with the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Rent Court - Lump-sum Lease - The Rent Court has jurisdiction to entertain eviction petitions even if the lease is a lump-sum lease, as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The court held that the failure to enter into a written tenancy agreement under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. (Paras 2-7)
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 21(2)(a) Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 - Recovery of Possession - The landlord is entitled to seek recovery of possession under Section 21(2)(a) when there is no valid tenancy agreement. The concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal that the tenant is liable to vacate were upheld as not perverse. (Paras 5-7)
C) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Revision - The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or material irregularity. In this case, no such infirmity was found. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition when the lease was allegedly a lump-sum lease (Othi) and not a regular monthly tenancy, and whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal suffer from perversity warranting interference under Article 227.
Final Decision
The civil revision petition is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal are upheld. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Lump-sum lease
- Othi
- mortgage
- tenancy agreement
- jurisdiction of Rent Court
- Section 4 Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2017
- Section 21(2)(a) Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017
- Article 227 Constitution of India
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 249
CRP No. 6557 of 2025 and CMP No.32377 of 2025
Mr.A.Arumugam for S.Saravanan (for petitioner), Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s.ARK Law Associates (for respondent)
L.Fukokuvaleyanstic Anandh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against concurrent orders of eviction passed by Rent Court and Rent Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2025 in R.L.T.A.No.174 of 2025 and the order dated 24.09.2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.255 of 2025.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the eviction order on the ground that the lease was a lump-sum lease (Othi) and not a regular lease, and that the Rent Court lacked jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Court (X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) passed an eviction order on 24.09.2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.255 of 2025, which was confirmed by the Rent Tribunal (XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) on 05.12.2025 in R.L.T.A.No.174 of 2025.
Issues
Whether the Rent Court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition when the lease was allegedly a lump-sum lease (Othi) and not a regular monthly tenancy.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal suffer from perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the lease was a lump-sum lease (Othi) amounting to a mortgage, not a regular lease, and thus the Rent Court lacked jurisdiction. He also contended that the tenant was ready to vacate but the landlord took undue advantage by claiming damages.
Respondent's counsel submitted that the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal rightly found the petitioner to be a tenant. Since there was no written rental agreement under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, the landlord was justified in seeking recovery of possession under Section 21(2)(a).
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or material irregularity. The failure to enter into a written tenancy agreement under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Court, and the landlord is entitled to seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is the tenant. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal, the present civil revision petition is filed.
I have gone through the orders of the Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal.
Insofar as in findings regarding the failure to enter into a tenancy agreement are concerned, I do not find any perversity or infirmity warranting interference in this revision, and that to under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The landlord filed R.L.T.O.P.No.255 of 2025 before the X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Court) seeking eviction. The Rent Court allowed the petition on 24.09.2025. The tenant appealed in R.L.T.A.No.174 of 2025 before the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai (Rent Tribunal), which dismissed the appeal on 05.12.2025. The tenant then filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017: Section 4, Section 21(2)(a)
