Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s. VEN PONN SHOES PVT LTD., represented by Managing Director K. Prabhuram; Respondents – M/s. BALAJI BHAVAN (hotel business) and individuals S. Ramesh, R. Shyamala Parvathi, R. Arun Prakash.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Revision Petition (CRP.No.956 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside the Rent Tribunal’s order dated 06.09.2024 (RLTA.No.3 of 2020) and restore the Rent Court’s eviction order dated 27.11.2023 (RLTOP.No.67 of 2023).
  • Background: The landlord filed RLTOP.No.1 of 2019 (renumbered RLTOP.No.67 of 2023) invoking Section 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Tenants Act (TNRRRLT Act) after the lease expired in November 2018 and no written tenancy agreement was executed, as required by Section 4(2) of the Act. The tenant contested by filing O.S.No.4 of 2019 in the District Munsif Court, Alandur, seeking a permanent injunction.
  • Legal Issues: Whether a landlord may invoke Section 21(2)(a) for eviction before the statutory 575‑day period for entering into a written tenancy agreement lapses, and the effect of divergent case law on this question.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Petitioner’s counsel (Mr. J. Pothiraj) relied on decisions in Gagan Bothra v. Balamanian (2025), Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu v. Sopos Technology Pvt Ltd (2025), Babitha Devi v. Rajendra Kumar (2025), R. Mangilal Ranka v. S. Shohan Singh (2026), and V.S. Mohan v. Sarath Naseera (2024) to argue that the 575‑day period is not a bar to filing.
  • Respondents’ counsel (Mr. A.K. Sriram) cited Ramesh Salunke v. Pramila Jain (2022), Lalith Kumar v. Pramila Jain (2022), Top Kapi v. S. Sarath Babu (2023), and the recent Division Bench judgment in Hemalatha v. Jeevanantham (01.06.2026) to contend the petition was premature.
  • Court’s Reasoning:

1. The tenancy and rent amount are undisputed; the failure to execute a tenancy agreement under Section 4(2) is acknowledged.

2. The statutory period was originally 90 days, later increased to 275 days and finally to 575 days. The present RLTOP was filed before the 575‑day period expired.

3. The Court distinguished earlier judgments that suggested premature filing was impermissible, holding that the landlord’s failure to enter into an agreement is a valid ground for eviction irrespective of the tenant’s readiness.

4. The Division Bench decision in Hemalatha was held to be prospective only; therefore, it does not bind the present case.

5. Citing Habeeb Hardware and Mangilal Ranka cases, the Court affirmed that the landlord’s right to invoke Section 21(2)(a) is not defeated by the 575‑day period.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
  • The order dated 06.09.2024 (RLTA.No.3 of 2020) is set aside.
  • The eviction order dated 27.11.2023 (RLTOP.No.67 of 2023) is restored.
  • Respondents must vacate and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner on or before 30.11.2026.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Topics: Eviction, Tenancy Law