The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants (TNRRRLT) Act, 2017 as stated in the preamble is enacted to regulate the rent, to balance the Rights and Liabilities of Landlord and Tenants, and to provide fast adjudication process for resolution of disputes, between the landlord and tenant. Before this enactment, we followed the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This new Act mandates the registration of tenancy agreements as per the Registration Act, 1908. One of the grounds for re-possession of the rented premises by the Landlord as enshrined in Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 empowers the landlord to evict a tenant even without notice which leads the tenant to face the adversary. This Article aims at critically analysing the impact of this section and arbitrary powers vested in the hands of the landlord in lieu of this Section.
KEYWORDS: TNRRRLT, Landlord, Tenant, Eviction, Re-possession, Tenancy, Arbitrariness etc.
INTRODUCTION:
The TNRRRLT Act, 2017, has been charted on the lines of the Central Model Tenancy Act. The Act replaced the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as it failed to cater to the needs of dynamic society. One of the principle aims of this legislation is to regulate the rights and liabilities of the landlord and tenant. Nevertheless, the provisions of this legislation bend in favour of landlord in its operation. The Legislation has to be one that maintains social equilibrium in the nation. The poor tenants should not be made to suffer at the mercy of the landlords. An attempt herein is made to understand the negative implications of the ground for re-possession by landlord enshrined under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
This Article is of descriptive nature and the research is based on secondary sources for the critical analysis of Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants (TNRRRLT) Act, 2017. Secondary sources of information like journals and websites are used for research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
The relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants (TNRRRLT) Act, 2017 in furtherance of this Article include the following.
Section 4 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017, states that all agreements under the said Act has to be mandatorily registered as per the Indian Registration Act in addition to registering the agreement with the Rent Authority under this Act. And that the tenancies have to be given effect by way of an agreement in writing. In the case of oral tenancies, the parties shall reduce the terms of the agreement in writing within 575 days from the date of notification of this Act. This is also applicable to tenancies that were created before the commencement of the Act.
Section 21 of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 provides for re-possession of the rented premises by the landlord. One of the grounds amongst others include failure on the part of the landlord and the tenant to enter into a written agreement.
SECTION 4 OF THE TNRRRLT ACT, 2017:
The relevant portion of the Section 4 of TNRRRLT Act, 2017 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 575 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) 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.”
SECTION 21 OF THE TNRRRLT ACT, 2017:
Section 21 of the Act enumerates certain grounds for repossession of the premises by the landlord. For the purpose of this Article, we shall look into Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act, 2017 that reads as follows:
“(2) The Rent Court may, on an application made to it in the manner as may be prescribed, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that the landlord and tenant have failed to enter into an agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 4.”
INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE SECTIONS:
The conjoined and plain reading of the above two provisions suggest that, if the landlord and the tenant failed to enter into written agreement within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the TNRRRLT Act, either the landlord or tenant is at liberty to terminate tenancy and seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the said act.
The Act does not specify, enlist or enumerate the circumstances under which the said ground of Section 21(2)(a) can be invoked.
INSTANCES THAT MAY ARISE:
As noted earlier, the Act did not clarify as to the invocability of Section 21(2)(a). But the same can be analyzed in the light of judicial precedence set in the case of S. Muruganandam vs J.Joseph.[1]
The possible contingencies that may arise before the Courts in determining the invocability of the said Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 may be broadly classified as follows:
| S.NO. | TENANCY | WHEN CREATED? | WHEN EXPIRED? |
| 1. | Written | Prior to commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | Prior to commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 |
| 2. | Oral(no written agreement entered into) | Prior to commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | Either prior or after the commencement of the Act |
| 3. | Written | Prior to commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 |
| 4. | Written(not registered but subsisting) | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | |
| 5. | Written (either registered or unregistered) | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 |
| 6. | Oral | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 | After commencement of TNRRRLT Act i.e. 22/02/2019 |
The above list is not exhaustive but contains various situations in view of the provisions of the TNRRRLT Act. The Honourable Mr. Justice. R. Subramaniann, provides for the following;
“20…….the first three clauses of cases enumerated above, do not pose any difficulty as the tenancies therein would have been entered into prior to the commencement of the Act and Sub Section 2 of Section 4 not having been complied with by the tenant or the landlord, the landlord is at liberty to seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act, dehors the question of registration of a Tenancy Agreement.
22. As regards the fourth clause of cases namely written tenancies entered into after the commencement of the Act, but not registered, there again the answer has to be yes and the landlord can seek eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, in view of the decision of this Court in V.Manimegalai v. Selvaraj Kannan[2], reported in 2019 (6) CTC 9.”
With regards to the fifth and sixth contingencies where there is no subsisting written agreement of lease, the agreements are either oral or written agreements which had been created after the commencement of the Act and had expired at the time of presentation of the petition, the landlord must start eviction proceedings before the Rent Courts within six months after expiry. If the landlord fails to initiate the eviction proceedings within six months, he has to approach the regular civil courts and abide by the general law Transfer of Property Act of 1882 to get the tenants evicted. This scheme fits right in the eyes of justice balancing rights of both the parties.
THE ACT NEGLECTED THE FOLLOWING POSSIBILITIES:
The difficulty arises with respect to first four contingencies. In the circumstances enumerated therein empowers either parties i.e. either the landlord or the tenant to terminate the rental or tenancy agreement whether oral or written in the absence of registered written agreement between the parties. This has the consequence of tenant being met with the adversary where he can be evicted by the landlord even without notice.
There are circumstances where the landlord arbitrarily seeks the tenant to be evicted. The tenant remains remediless in such circumstances. It is more likely that the tenant suffers for something for which he is not responsible. The following are the certain such situations where tenant is innocent and readily available to enter into formal written agreement and where the landlord defaults or exercises or imposes arbitrary conditions that leads tenant to step out from entering into the agreement.
In all of these situations, amongst others, if landlord is entitled to repossession of the rental premises leading to eviction of tenant, there will arise a question as to “is it open for the landlord to take advantage of his own default and seek eviction.” A person should not be rendered remediless, if so, it will lead to miscarriage of justice.
The statement of Objects and Reasons for the TNRRRLT Act, 2017[7] provides for its aim as “to balance the rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the tenant and provide regulation of the rent as per the agreement.” If the requisites of the Act (such as entering into registered written agreement, determining the terms of agreement including rent etc.) are allowed to be unilaterally decided and determined by the landlord, then the very purpose of the Act is defeated leading to chaos amongst and suffering to the tenants, thereby leading to injustice.
LACUNA IN THE ACT:
The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 appears to heavily prioritize landlords’ interests, potentially overlooking the needs of tenants, who often find themselves in financially vulnerable positions. Specifically, Section 21 of this Act, which addresses the recovery of possession for a landlord’s occupation, seems excessively biased in favour of landlords. The recovery of premises in the situations mentioned above amongst others at the instance of the landlord is very much unqualified and might even prove detrimental to the interests of the tenants, who would wish to remain in peace for some period of time in the premises.
To address these concerns, it is essential to introduce specific limitations to the aforementioned provisions. Furthermore, the wording of these provisions should be meticulously crafted to prevent landlords from exploiting economically disadvantaged tenants. The goal is to achieve a fair and balanced legal framework that protects both landlords’ rights and tenants’ interests.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:
“The Landlord operate a certain kind of monopoly against the tenants”
The above quote from Karl Marx has now become a reality through the passing of the enactment of TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The relationship between landlord and tenant has always been one where landlord is at the position of domination. And if the enacted legislations also pave way for the exercise of arbitrariness and monopoly in the hands of landlord, leaving no scope for negotiation by tenant, it will lead to social non-welfare.
The grounds for re-possession by landlord are very much unqualified and majority of the times even proves to be detrimental to the interests of the tenants, who would wish to remain in peace for certain period of time in the premises. Hence, certain restrictions in the said provisions have to be imposed. Even in cases, where the written agreement is not entered into between landlord and tenant on account of landlord’s default or failure, the Courts have ruled in favour of landlord. This leads to vexing of tenant with no fault. A legislation that leads to imposing adversary on the innocent.
The language of the provision must be unambiguous to prevent landlords from taking advantage of vulnerable tenants. This Act has effectively rendered tenants powerless in the hands of unscrupulous landlords, highlighting the urgent need for a review and necessary amendments to transform it into a true ‘Social Welfare Legislation,’ ensuring a fair balance between the parties involved.
[1] S. Muruganandam vs J.Joseph;CRP NPD Nos.3056, 3061, 3062,3063, 3067 and 3094 of 2021
[3] S.R.Venkatesh vs Rep By Power Agent;C.R.P.No.3031 of 2022
[4] S.R.Venkatesh vs Rep By Power Agent on 11 October, 2022;C.R.P.No.3031 of 2022
[5] Dilip Solanki vs Kiran Kumari;C.R.P.NPD.No.941 of 2023 and Lalith Kumar vs Pramila Jain;C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1997 of 2021
[6] Lalith Kumar vs Pramila Jain;C.R.P.(N.P.D).No.1997 of 2021