Ramesh Salunkhe vs Pramila Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 25.10.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.01.2022 CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

C.R.P.(N.P.D)No.1996 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.15184 of 2021 Ramesh Salunkhe ...Petitioner

Vs.

Pramila Jain ...Respondent

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.09.2021 in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2019 and allow the revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Advocate for M/s.S.T.Raja For Respondent : Mr.OmPrakash Senior Advocate for M/s.K.Bakthavachalu

1/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order

passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in

R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2021 confirming the order of the learned XII Judge,

Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2019.

2. The respondent as a petitioner filed an application

under Section 21 (2) (a) and Section 21 (2) (g) of Tamil Nadu Regulation

of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 for

the relief of evicting the petitioner from the schedule property and

claiming a compensation of Rs.3000/- per month from 01.06.2019 till the

termination of the tenancy under Section 23 of the said Act.

3. The averments made in the application, in brief, are

as follows:

The respondent/applicant purchased the petition premises

along with the entire building in auction sale conducted by

Purasaiwakkam Benefit Fund Limited in 2002 and became absolute

2/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

owner of the land and building at premises bearing door No.134,

N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai. Applicant wrote a letter to the respondent to

attorn the tenancy in her favour. Respondent attorned the tenancy and

was paying the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- regularly. The erstwhile

landlord filed C.S.No.160 of 2005 before this Court to declare auction

sale as null and void. Respondent and other tenants were parties to the

suit. Respondent has not raised any claim regarding the advance amount

said to have been paid to erstwhile landlord Babu Narashimma Rao. This

Court in application No.1070 of 2005 directed all the tenants including

the respondent to pay the monthly rent and arrears to the applicant.

C.S.No.160 of 2005 was dismissed and O.S.A.No.217 of 2018 filed by

Babu Narashimma Rao is pending. Respondent has been regularly

paying rent from 2002 onwards. There exist relationship of landlord and

tenant between respondent/applicant and petitioner/respondent.

Applicant is carrying on business as a dealer in diamond, gold, silver,

precious stones and artificial works. She wants to renovate the entire

building by giving facelift consistent with the business requirements to

attract customers. She wants to construct a strong room, modern lift

3/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

facilities in the premises. She is carrying on business in several places in

city and wants to shift the entire business to one place. The purpose of

purchasing the property is locating entire business in this premises.

Applicant genuinely requires the premises for her own use. There is no

rental agreement entered into between the respondent/applicant and

petitioner/respondent. Petitioner/respondent has not paid any rental

advance or security to the applicant. Applicant has written a letter to the

respondent enclosing a rental agreement for perusal and that was

received by the respondent. Respondent has written a letter dated

27.04.2019 stating he paid Rs.3,75,000/- as rental advance to the

erstwhile landlord Babu Narashimmia Rao. Applicant replied to the letter

on 30.04.2019 denying the contents. Respondent again wrote a letter

dated 03.05.2019, but he has not come forward to enter into a written

agreement with the applicant, which is mandatory under Section 4 (2) of

the Act 2017 and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Applicant issued a

legal notice dated 08.05.2019 stating that the premises occupied by the

respondent is required for her business purpose and terminated the

respondent's tenancy ending with 31.05.2019. Respondent was called

4/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

upon to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the portion of the

building on or before 01.06.2019. Respondent replied the legal notice

with false, frivolous, vexatious, unacceptable and untenable contentions.

A suitable rejoinder was sent. Respondent issued a sur-rejoinder.

Respondent failed and neglected to vacate the premises. Therefore, this

application.

4. Petitioner/respondent filed counter denying the

averments made in the application and contended that he was inducted as

a tenant by Babu Narashimmia Rao for a rent of Rs.1000/- per month.

He paid a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as advance. Respondent purchased the

premises under occupation through auction during 2002. This auction

was challenged by Babu Narashimmia Rao by filing C.S.No.160 of 2005

and it was dismissed. Appeal in O.S.A.No.217 of 2018 was filed before

this Court. When the appeal proceedings is pending between owners of

the property, present eviction proceedings is against law. Applicant has

accepted the respondent as tenant and received a monthly rent of

Rs.1500/- per month from 2007 till date. Despite, the litigation with

5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

original landlord, respondents is paying the monthly rent at Rs.1500/- per

month from 2007 without any default. Applicant issued a letter dated

15.04.2019 enclosing a rental agreement by enhancing the rent from

Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month and demanded three

months rental advance of Rs.45,000/-. Advance of Rs.3,75,000/- paid to

the previous owner was suppressed. Respondent sent a reply to pay the

agreed rent of Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.15,000/-. There had been

exchange of notices between the parties. Without considering the

hardship of the respondent, this application is filed. Unless conditions

under Section 9 (2) of the Act is satisfied, applicant cannot maintain the

petition. The application is not maintainable either in law or facts and

therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. During the enquiry before the learned Rent Court,

PW1 and RW1 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P26 were marked on the

side of the petitioner. Exhibits R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the

respondent.

6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence,

the Rent Court allowed the petition under Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act

and directed the petitioner/respondent to vacate the building. This was

confirmed by the Rent Tribunal. Against the said order this Civil Revision

Petition is preferred is preferred. Though the application was filed under

Section 21 (2) (a) and 21 (2) (g) of the TNRRRLT Act, the

respondent/applicant not pressed the petition filed under Section 21 (2)

(g). Therefore, both the Courts have considered the only ground under

Section 21 (2) (a) for disposal.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant

submitted that the respondent purchased the petition mentioned premises

under occupation through Auction under condition “as it whereas basis”

during the year 2002. This auction was challenged by the erstwhile

original owner Babu Narashima Rao by filing C.S.No.160 of 2005 and

the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, an appeal is preferred in

O.S.A.No.217 of 2018 and it is pending. The conduct of the

respondent/landlord in claiming the enhanced rent of Rs.15,000/- per

7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

month is arbitrary, unreasonable and is against Section 4 (2) of Tamil

Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and

Tenants Act, 2017 (herein after referred as TNRRRLT Act, 2017).

Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Sub-Section 2 of

Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 in W.P.No.2648 of 2021, which is

pending before this Court. This fact was also brought to the notice of the

learned Appellate Authority. Without considering the same, orders had

been passed in haste. Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 provides

time limit of 575 days to enter into the rental agreement. This case has

been filed before the expiry of 575 days and therefore, it is not

maintainable.

8. One more submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that Section 4 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017 deals

with the Tenancy Agreement.

Section 4 (1) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 deals with a new

tenancy and tenancy agreement to be entered into between the landlord

and tenant after commencement of this Act.

8/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

Section 4 (2) of the said Act deals with entering into the tenancy

agreement in respect of a tenancy, which had come into existence before

the commencement of the Act, and when there is no agreement in

writing. This provision requires the landlord and tenant to enter into an

agreement in writing with regard to that existing tenancy within a period

of 575 days from the date of commencement of this Act.

Section 4(3) deals with the registration of the agreement entered

under Section 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the said Act and also the written

agreement entered into between the landlord and tenant before the

commencement of this Act.

9. Among these three categories, this case fits into the

second category i.e., there is already an existing tenancy but there is no

written agreement. In the case on hand, the landlord and tenant are

required to enter into the tenancy agreement in respect of the existing

tenancy. No new terms can be included in the existing tenancy

agreement. What is required under Section 4 (2) of the Act is that the

terms of the existing oral tenancy have to be reduced into writing as a

9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

tenancy agreement. However, in the case before hand, the respondent

instead of entering into the tenancy agreement with existing terms, by

incorporating new terms, had required the petitioner to enter into a new

tenancy agreement by asking him to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month,

which is contrary to the rent paid at Rs.1500/- per month previously. The

advance paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- was also not

considered and that was a reason why the petitioner has not come

forward to execute the tenancy agreement sent by the respondent.

However, both the Courts below on misreading of the provisions and on

wrong understanding of the facts, have come to the conclusion that the

petitioner had not come forward to enter into the tenancy agreement with

the respondent and therefore the respondent is liable to be evicted under

Section 21 (2) (1) of the said Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

petitioner prays for setting aside the orders of the Courts below.

10. In response, the learned counsel for the

respondent/landlord submitted that TNRRRLT Act, 2017 has replaced

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by repeal. After this

10/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

Act came into force, no person was allowed to take any premises on rent

except by written agreement. In the case before hand, the respondent

sent a notice to the petitioner requiring him to enter into a tenancy

agreement. However, the petitioner refused to enter into the tenancy

agreement by giving flimsy and unreasonable reasons. The alleged rent

of Rs.1,500/- was fixed decades ago. The respondent cannot be expected

to continue with the old minimum rent after purchasing the property and

hence the respondent requested the petitioner to enter into the new

tenancy agreement as per Law. When the petitioner failed to do so, he

has to face the consequences. He has not produced any material to show

the payment of advance of Rs.3,75,000/- paid to the former owner.

Taking all these facts into consideration, both the Courts below have

correctly decided the matter and directed the petitioner to vacate and

handover the vacant possession to the respondent. Therefore, he prayed

for sustaining the order of the Courts below and for dismissal of this Civil

Revision Petition.

11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials available on record.

12. Section 4 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017 deals with the tenancy

agreement. It reads as follows:

“4. Tenancy Agreement.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing.

(2) Where, in relation to a tenancy created before the commencement of this Act, no agreement in writing was entered into, the landlord and the tenant shall enter into an agreement in writing with regard to that tenancy within a period of five hundred and seventy five days from the date of commencement of this Act:

Provided that where the landlord or tenant, fails to enter into an agreement under this sub-section, the landlord or tenant shall have the right to apply for termination of the tenancy under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 21.

(3) Every agreement referred to in sub-section (1)

12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

and sub-section (2) and any tenancy agreement in writing already entered into before the commencement of this Act, shall be registered with the Rent Authority by the landlord or tenant, by making an application in the Form specified in the First Schedule within such time as may be prescribed.

(4) Omitted.

(5) Omitted.

(6) Omitted.

13. From the reading of the above Section, we can understand

that there are three situations possible when entering into a tenancy

agreement. The first situation is that entering into a tenancy after the

commencement of the new Act. The tenancy itself is created after

commencement of the Act and therefore the tenancy agreement will also

have to be executed after commencement of the Act. This is dealt under

section 4 (1) of the Act.

14. Next situation is that there is an existing tenancy.

There is no written agreement between the landlord and tenant. Possibly,

13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

the tenancy agreement was an oral agreement. The landlord and tenant

might have orally agreed on certain amount of advance, certain amount

of rent, certain modes of payment of rent etc., Section 4 (2) of the

TNRRRLT Act, 2017 requires that the existing oral tenancy agreement

has to be reduced into writing and a tenancy agreement has to be

executed between the landlord and tenant with regard to the terms of the

existing tenancy. The period fixed for executing this tenancy agreement

is 575 days from the commencement of this Act. The proviso to this

Section gives an option to landlord or tenant to apply for termination of

tenancy if the landlord or tenant fails to enter into an agreement.

15. The third situation is that there is already a tenancy

prior to the commencement of this Act. The tenancy is evidenced by a

written agreement. In all these three situations, the tenancy agreement

has to be registered with the authority. For the purpose of disposal of this

petition, we are concerned only with Sub Sections 1,2 and 3 of Section 4

of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, especially Sub Section 2 of section 4 of the

TNRRRLT Act, 2017.

14/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

16. In the case before hand, there is no dispute with

regard to the fact that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the petition

premises even before the purchase of the property by the respondent in

auction. It is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the

property under the condition “as it whereas basis”. Therefore it is

claimed by the petitioner that whatever the tenancy agreement he had

with his previous owner, has to be continued with the subsequent owner,

namely the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent cannot

impose any new terms of tenancy than what was agreed under the

previous tenancy.

17. As explained above, Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT

Act makes it clear that in case of tenancy created before the

commencement of this Act, where there is no written tenancy agreement,

a tenancy agreement has to be entered into between the landlord and

tenant with regard to "that tenancy", i.e., the existing tenancy.

15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

18. In this legal background, we have to assess the

evidence available in this case. Ex.P1 is the copy of the letter dated

15.04.2019 sent by the respondent/landlord to the petitioner/tenant. This

letter reads that the respondent / landlord enclosed a rental agreement as

per the new Act viz., TNRRRLT Act, 2017 for perusal of the tenant and

requested him to do the needful. This rental agreement incorporated

several terms inclusive of fixing monthly rent at Rs.15,000/- per month

and security deposit of three months at Rs.45,000/-. The period of

tenancy was fixed from 01.05.2019, 31.05.2019 etc., After receiving the

said letter, the tenant sent Ex.P2 reply stating that he was inducted as

tenant by the former owner Babu Narashima Rao during the year 1998

for a rent of Rs.1000/- per month and he paid a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as

advance. Then he claimed that after the property was purchased by the

respondent, he was paying Rs.1,500/- per month as rent to the

respondent without any default. Thus he requested to maintain the

monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- in the rental agreement. It was replied

16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

through Ex.P3 letter by the respondent/landlord that she is not concerned

or connected with the advance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- allegedly paid by

the petitioner /tenant to the former owner Babu Narasimma Rao. It is

further stated that she has not received any advance. She admitted that

the petitioner was paying monthly rent at Rs.1,500/-. Since the petitioner

is governed by the new Act, the terms and conditions have to be

incorporated in the agreement as per the new Act. Therefore, she cannot

accept the old rent and new rent claimed at Rs.15,000/- is very

reasonable. Then on 03.05.2019, the petitioner sent Exhibit P4 rejoinder

to the respondent reiterating the payment of Rs.3,75,000/- as advance

and rent at Rs.1,500/- per month. It was followed by Ex.P.5, legal notice

dated 08.05.2019, claiming that the petitioner was paying Rs.1,500/- as

monthly rent and respondent requires the building for her business

purpose and with an information that the tenancy is terminated w.e.f.,

31.05.2019. The respondent sent Ex.P6 reply notice reiterating the

advance of Rs.3,75,000/- paid and the payment of Rs.1,500/- as rent and

that the respondent cannot enhance the rent. It was replied through

Ex.P7 with a request to vacate and deliver possession.

17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

19. From these letters and notices, it is clear that the

petitioner was paying Rs.1,500/- as monthly rent to the landlord after

purchase of the premises. In fact, it is admitted in the application that

respondent was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. Of course, there is a

dispute with regard to the advance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- said to have

been paid to the former owner. Respondent states that she is not

concerned with or connected with the said amount. It is clear from the

evidence of P.W.1 that the monthly rent prior to the commencement of

this Act was paid at Rs.1,500/-. PW1 in his evidence, had deposed that “

a sum of Rs.1,500/- was received as monthly rent till April 2019”. He

also admitted that the petitioner has sent a reply expressing his

willingness to execute the tenancy agreement for a monthly rent of

Rs.1,500/-. The question now looms large is whether the

respondent/landlord can impose and direct the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month as rent when he was actually paying a rent of

Rs.1,500/- per month.

18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

20. The answer to the question is clearly indicated in

section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT

Act, 2017 requires the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement in

writing i.e., tenancy agreement with regard to that tenancy. "That

tenancy" means the tenancy created before the commencement of the

Act. Therefore, the respondent cannot unilaterally fix the monthly rent

Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner as the tenancy agreement should only refer

the terms that were existing prior to the commencement of this Act. In

the case before hand, the rent was paid at Rs.1500/-per month before the

commencement of TNRRRLT Act, and therefore, the unilateral demand

made by the respondent to execute a tenancy agreement on a monthly

rent of Rs.15,000/- per month is contrary to the legal requirement under

Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. However, both the Courts

below on misreading of the provisions, had found that the landlord is

entitled to fix the rent unilaterally and the tenant has no option except to

enter into a tenancy agreement, even it is unreasonable claim. That is not

19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

proper and not on the basis of correct reading of the legal provisions and

the scope of the act. "The new Law aims to regulate the rent as per the

terms and conditions of the agreement to be entered into between the

owner of the premises and the tenant. It also aims to balance the rights

and responsibilities of the landlord and the tenant and provide

regulation of the rent as per the agreement.”

21. The next aspect is that the tenancy agreement

stipulated under Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 can be

executed within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of

the Act. This Act came into force and commenced from 22.02.2019. In

that case, the petitioner still has time to enter into the tenancy agreement

with the respondent. But the petition was filed within a period of 575

days on 01.07.2019 and it is a premature petition. Both the Courts

below have misconstrued this 575 days and the learned Rent Controller

found that this period relates only to the period for entering a tenancy

agreement and not for approaching the Rent Court for termination, once

there is a failure to enter into the agreement.

20/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

22. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not refused to

enter into the tenancy agreement with the respondent. He is prepared to

enter into the tenancy agreement with the respondent as per the existing

terms. That is what is required under Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act,

2017. Without entering into the meaningful discussion with the

petitioner, the respondent rushed to the Court, when there is no express

refusal on the part of the petitioner to enter into a tenancy agreement, of

course with the existing terms. In fact, it is the respondent, who shut the

door once for all by categorically saying in her letter in Exhibit P3 that

she does not want any communication or exchange of letters from the

petitioner regarding the rental agreement.

23. No doubt that, there is a lacuna in TNRRRLT Act to

meet the situation, where there is no agreement between the landlord and

tenant with regard to the quantum of rent, advance amount and other

aspects in an existing tenancy and where there is no written agreement.

21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

However, it cannot be used as a tool for evicting a tenant by making

fanciful and unreasonable claim of rent or by denying the agreed rent.

24. One more aspect canvassed by the learned counsel

for the respondent/landlord is that as per Section 38 (5) of the TNRRRLT

Act, 2017, there is no provision for revision or appeal available under the

said Act. He further submitted that the scope of judicial interference

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited and this Court

cannot act as a Court of appeal and should not interfere with the decision

of the inferior Courts, unless there is manifest miscarriage of justice. He

relied on the following judgments in support of this proposition. Delhi

High Court in CM.(M) No.1041 of 2011, CM.Nos.16799 of 2011 and

16800 of 2011 (Jasbir Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur and Others), observed

that,

26.Upon careful reading of observations in the above referred cases, it can be safely said that the scope of judicial interference under Article 227 is well settled and the Court ceased of the proceedings under Article 227cannot act as a Court of appeal and should

22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

interfere with the decision of the inferior tribunal or Court only to keep the authorities and Courts within their bounds and in the cases where it results into manifest miscarriage of justice and not in all other cases to correct mere errors. The power under Article 227 is thus discretionary in nature and can be exercised in the cases where the lower Court ignores material piece of evidence or considers some evidence which it ought not to have considered resulting into injustice and not in cases where there are two views possible and the view adopted by lower Court is reasonable and plausible one and the High Court would be unjustified to interfere in such cases merely to arrive at different view in the matter as this would be re-appreciating the evidence on finding of facts which is the role of the appellate Court and not the supervisory Court acting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is observed in the judgment reported in (1975) 1 Supreme

Court Cases 858 (Bathutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R.Tarta

and another), that,

23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

8.Here, when we turn to the judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has clearly misconceived the scope and extent of its power under Article 227 and overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction under that Article. It has proceeded to reappreciate the evidence for the purpose of correcting errors of fact supposed to have been committed by the District Court. That was clearly impermissible to the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227.

25. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the High Court in its power of superintendence over the

Subordinate Courts under is territory can always interfere with the

proceedings of the Courts below, if the proceedings results in miscarriage

of justice by improper application of law.

He relied on the judgment reported in 1983 AIR SC 473 (Mithu

Vs. State of Punjab) for the proposition that if a provision of law is

unconstitutional, that must be struck down. It is observed in this

24/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

judgment that,

A savage sentence is anathema to the civilized jurisprudence of Article 21. The sentence of death, prescribed by Section 303 of the Penal Code for the offence of murder committed by a person who is under a sentence of life imprisonment, is arbitrary and oppressive so as to be violative of Articles 21 and 14. Accordingly, Section 303 is declared unconstitutional and void and is struck down. All cases of murder will now fall under Section 302 and there shall be no mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder.

26. The reading of the judgments cited by the learned

counsel for the respondent shows that High Court cannot unnecessarily

interfere with the decision of the Tribunal or inferior Court and judicial

interference should be limited. The interference should be limited only to

keep the authorities or Courts within their bounds and in cases where it

25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

results into manifest, mis-courage of justice.

27. In the case before hand, both the Courts below have

wrongly interpreted Section 4(2) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and

Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 and came to the

conclusion that even in case of existing tenancy, the landlord can

unilaterally fix a fancy rent and the tenant has no choice except to accept

the terms of the landlord. This is against the fundamental principle of law

especially Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act. The respondent/landlord

clearly admitted in the application, exchange of notices and during

evidence that the monthly rent was only Rs.1500/- Therefore, the

landlord cannot enhance the rent ten times higher, taking advantage of

the introduction of TNRRRLT Act, with the only motive to steamroll and

evict the tenant.

28. It is observed in Timbak Vs. Ram Chandra reported

in AIR 1977 SC 1222, that,

26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

"It is also well established that it is only when an order of the

Tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and

fair play or a patent or flagrant error in the procedure of law has crept

or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a court can

justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution."

29. This is a fit case requiring the interference from this

Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to undo the manifest

miscarriage of justice committed in this case to the petitioner.

30. Therefore, this Court finds that the judgment of

learned II Additional Judge in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2021 confirming the

judgment of learned Small Causes Rent Court, in R.L.T.O.P. No.3 of

2019 is illegal and has to be necessarily set aside and accordingly set

aside.

31. With regard to the striking down of Section 21 (2)

(a) of TNRRRLT Act, there is already a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12648 of

27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

2021 is pending in this regard and this Court does not want to express

any opinion in this regard.

32. In conclusion, this Court finds that the judgment of

learned II Additional Judge in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2021 confirming the

judgment of learned Small Causes Rent Court, in R.L.T.O.P. No.3 of

2019 is illegal and has to be necessarily set aside and accordingly set

aside. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs of the petitioner.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Ep/Vum 25.01.2022

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

To 1. The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J,

Ep/Vum

C.R.P.(N.P.D)No.1996 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.15184 of 2021

30/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1996 of 2021

25.01.2022

31/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis