R.C. Diocese of Madurai, v. Tamilarasi,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.3750, 4295, 4296 and 4638 of 2023 C.R.P.(MD)No.1422 of 2023:- R.C.Diocese of Madurai, Through its Procurator, A.Alvares Sebastian, Archbishop's House, K.Pudur, Madurai - 625 007. .. Petitioner Versus Tamilarasi .. Respondent Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the speedy disposal of R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2021, on the file of the Rent Court (District Munsif), Theni, within the time limit as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1422 to 1425/2023 and for Respondent in C.R.P.(MD)Nos. 824, 926, 928 and 958/2023 : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan For Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)Nos. 824, 926, 928 and 958/2023 and

for Respondent in C.R.P.(MD)Nos. 1422 to 1425/2023 :Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan COMMON ORDER Since the issues involved in the present Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶2C.R.P(MD)Nos.1422 to 1425 of 2023 have been filed by the landlord, namely, R.C.Diocese of Madurai, for early disposal of R.L.T.O.P.Nos.3, 1, 2 and 7 of 2021 before the Rent Court (District Munsif), Theni, respectively.

¶3CRP(MD)Nos.824, 926, 928 and 958 of 2023 have been filed by the respective tenants on the ground that the respective proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''] was not available to the landlord, namely, R.C.Diocese of Madurai, as there was no valid tenancy agreements subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶4Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners/tenants in CRP(MD)Nos.824, 926, 928 and 958 of 2023 had filed miscellaneous applications in I.A. as detailed below, questioning the jurisdiction of Rent Court, namely, the District Munsif Court, Theni, to entertain the respective R.L.T.O.Ps. filed by the landlord, namely, R.C.Diocese of Madurai. CRP(MD)No. I.A.No. R.L.T.O.P.No. 824 of 2023 4 of 2022 2 of 2021 926 of 2023 2 of 2022 7 of 2021 928 of 2023 4 of 2022 3 of 2021 958 of 2023 4 of 2022 1 of 2021

¶5By the impugned orders in C.R.Ps. Column 1 to above Table, the applications filed for dismissal of above mentioned R.L.T.O.Ps. filed by the R.C.Diocese of Madurai have been dismissed. The relevant portion of the four orders read almost identical. For the purpose of the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions, a reference is made to the impugned order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.7 of 2021 on 23.11.2020, which reads as under : ''14. ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s KUfhde;jk; vjph; N[hrg; vd;w tof;fpYk; toq;fpa topfhl;Ljy; cj;jutpd; 13tJ ghuhtpy; cs;s 1tjhfr; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s written tenancy created prior to and expired prior to the commencement of the Act (tenant holding over under an oral tenancy) vd;gjpd; fPo;jhd; mry; kDTk; tUfpd;w epiyapy; mry; kDitAk; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;tjw;Fk; vjph;kDjhuh;f;Fk; chpikAk; cs;sJ. kDjhuh; jug;gpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s 6tJ topfhl;lyhd oral tenancies created after the new Act vd;gJk; 22.02.2019k; Njjpf;Fg; gpd;G Gjpajhf tha;nkhop xg;ge;jk; Vw;gl;bUe;jhy; kl;LNk ntspNaw;Wjy; ghpfhuk; Nfhhp rptpy; tof;Fk; jhf;fy; nra;a Ntz;Lk;.

¶15vdNt vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; khz;GkpF nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; toq;fpa Nkw;gb Kd;jPh;g;gpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s 13tJ ghuhtpy; topfhl;Ljypd; cs;s 1tJ fhyj;jpy; cs;s written tenancy created prior to and expired prior to the commencement of the Act (tenant holding over under an oral tenancy) vd;W nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sthW tUfpd;w epiyapy; vjph;kDjhUk; kDjhiu thlif xg;ge;jk; Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhs;s mioj;Jk; tukWj;Js;sjhy; kDjhUf;F vjpuhf 21(2)(a)d;gb ,k;kDTk; jhf;fy; nra;tjw;Fk; chpikAk; cs;sJ.

¶16Mf kDjhh; jug;gpy; tha;nkhop xg;ge;jk; 22.02.2019k; Mz;Lf;Fg; gpd;G Gjpa rl;lk; eilKiwf;F te;j gpd;G Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhz;Ls;s tha;nkhop thlif xg;ge;jq;fSf;F kl;LNk nghUe;Jk;. ,t;tof;fpYk; kDjhUk; vjph;kDjhUk; 01.05.2015 Kjy;

31.04.2019k; Njjp tiuf;Fk; thlif xg;ge;jk; vOjg;gl;L GJg;gpf;fg;glhj

epiyapy;

kDjhUk;

kDr;

nrhj;jpy; thliff;F

,Ue;J

te;jhYk;

njhw;wpf;

nfhz;bUf;Fk; thlifjhuhfj;jhd; ,Uf;fpwhh;. vdNt vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; thjpl;Ls;sthW vjph;kDjhUk; kDjhUf;F vjpuhf jkpo;ehL nrhj;J chpikahsh; kw;Wk; thlifjhuh;fspd; chpikfs; kw;Wk; nghWg;Gfs; Kiwg;gLj;Jjy; rl;lk; 2017d; gphpT 21 (2) (a) vd;w gphptpd; fPo; kDjhUk; thlif xg;ge;jk; Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhs;s tukWj;Js;sjpd; %yk; vjphkDjhUk; ntspNaw;Wif ghpfhuk; Nfhhp thlif jPh;g;ghaj;ij mZfpAs;sJk; rhpahdJ vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;fpwJ.

¶17Kbthf kDjhupd; kDTj; js;Sgb nra;ag;gLfpwJ. kDjhUk; mry; kDitAk; fhyjhkjg;gLj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;w vz;zj;jpNyNa ,k;kDitAk; jhf;fy; nra;Js;s epiyapy; kDr; nryTj; njhifahf &gha;.3000Kk; vjph;kDjhu;f;F nrYj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.''

¶6During the course of hearing, a reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of S.Muruganandam Vs J.Joseph [C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3056, 3061, 3062, 3063, 3067 and 3094 of 2021, decided on 04.02.2022], wherein, in the context of Section 4 (2) of the Act, after examining the various provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and other enactments, this Court has held as follows: "21. In CRP Nos.3061, 3063 and 3067 of 2021 on the facts set out in the petition, I find that the Rent Agreements were entered into prior to the commencement of the Act and they had expired either prior to or after the commencement of the Act and no new agreement in writing as required under Section 4(2) of the Act has been entered into or the existing agreement has been registered within a period of 575 days from the date of the commencement of the new Act. Therefore, these three Revisions will have to be allowed with a direction to the Rent Court to number the application and dispose of the same as the existence or otherwise the requirement of a written registered instrument for creation of a tenancy in these cases will not arise."

¶7The learned counsel for the tenant submits that in the R.L.T.O.Ps. filed by the landlord before the Rent Court [District Munsif Court], Theni, the landlord has categorically stated that the unregistered lease was signed on 29.09.2016 for the period commencing from 01.09.2016 to 31.08.2017 and that the said lease had expired. It is further submitted that in the R.L.T.O.Ps. filed by the landlord, the landlord has also stated that after the above lease period was over, lease was extended orally from month to month till it was terminated by notice dated

14.11.2019, which was also replied by the respective tenants. Hence, it is submitted that the case is covered by the sixth contingency as was determined by this Court in S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph [C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.3056, 3061, 3062, 3063, 3067 and 3094 of 2021, decided on 04.02.2022]. It is specifically stated that there was only an oral tenancy created after the new Act came into force with effect from 22.02.2019. Hence, the only option available to the landlord was to file a regular suit. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders rejecting the applications filed by the tenants to strike off all the R.L.T.O.Ps. have to be interfered.

¶8Replying the arguments on behalf of the tenants, the learned counsel for the landlord submits that earlier O.S.Nos.113 to 115 of 2019 were filed as against the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1422, 1423 and 1424 of 2023. It is further submitted that notices were also served to all the tenants on 04.11.2019 and thereafter, O.S.No. 113 to 115 of 2019 filed by the landlord were withdrawn on 20.04.2021.

¶9It is submitted that prior to few days before withdrawal of the suits, the R.L.T.O.Ps. came to be filed on 23.03.2021, as there is no restriction under the provisions of the Act for a religious and charitable institution from invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Court [District Munsif Court, Theni] in the absence of a Notification under Section 3(c) of the Act.

¶10That apart, it is submitted that even otherwise option is given if the agreement between the parties contemplates that they shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that no notification has been issued under the new Act similar to notification issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, excluding the jurisdiction of the Rent Court to entertain R.L.T.O.P. at the behest of religious institution and therefore, the respective proceedings initiated under the provisions of the new Act are well within the jurisdiction of the Rent Court.

¶11As far as six contingencies that have been identified by this Court in C.R.P.

(NPD)Nos.3056, 3061, 3062, 3063, 3067 and 3094 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022 [S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph] are concerned, the learned counsel for the landlord submits that they had entered into tenancy prior to the enactment of the 2017 Act and those tenancy agreements expired prior to the commencement of 2017 Act in February, 2019 and therefore, the issue would be covered by the first contingency identified in the above case, which reads as under:- ''i. Written tenancy created prior to and expired prior to the commencement of the Act (Tenant holding over under an oral tenancy)''

¶12It is submitted that the issue covered by the first contingency has been answered in Paragraph No.21 of the said order as follows:- ''21. ...... I find that the Rent Agreements were entered into prior to the commencement of the Act and they had expired either prior to or after the commencement of the Act and no new agreement in writing as required under Section 4(2) of the Act has been entered into or the existing agreement has been registered within a period of 575 days from the date of the commencement of the new Act. Therefore, these three Revisions will have to be allowed with a direction to the Rent Court to number the application and dispose of the same as the existence or otherwise the requirement of a written registered instrument for creation of a tenancy in these cases will not arise.'' Therefore, it is submitted that there is no case made out for interfering with the impugned order, rejecting the request of the tenants.

¶13That apart, it is submitted that Contingency No.5 that was identified in the said order will apply only to a situation where tenancies were created after the commencement of the new Act and have presently expired, whereas, in the present case, the tenancy was created prior to the commencement of the new Act and was continued after the new Act on month to month basis. That apart, it is submitted that during the pendency of the three suits, the petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1422 and 1424 of 2023 had deposited a portion of the rent before the Court. However, after the suits were withdrawn, the respondents have not paid any rent to the landlord.

¶14The learned counsel for the landlord has drawn the attention to some of the decisions of this Court rendered in the context, which are detailed as under:-

(i) S.Anandraj vs. M.Sabeena [C.R.P.(NPD)No.1356 of 2021, dated

10.02.2022]

(ii) Mrs.Mital Surendira vs. Miss Malack Safaa Fathima and another [C.R.P.No.3281 of 2022, dated 11.01.2023]

(iii) S.Nafiza Begum vs. R.Srinivasan [C.R.P.(MD)No.2506 of 2022, dated

09.02.2023]

(iv) N.K.Vatchala vs. S.Syed Samiullah [C.R.P.No.786 of 2023, dated

27.03.2023]

(v) K.Ramanathadurai vs. T.Thangam [C.R.P.(MD)No.816 of 2023, dated 27.03.2023]

¶15I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the landlord and the learned counsel for the tenant.

¶16The law on the subject has been clarified by this Court in S.Muruganandam's case referred to supra. Six contingencies that were identified by this Court in the said case are as under:- ''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 Act.''

¶17As far as the present cases are concerned, the issue to be determined is, whether there was an oral tenancy created before commencement of the 2017 Act or prior to.

¶18A reading of the pleading filed before the Rent Court [District Munsif, Theni] in respect of the R.L.T.O.Ps. indicates that the tenancies were prior to commencement of the new Act. They had expired prior to commencement of the new Act in February, 2019. After the agreements had expired, there was no renewal of the agreement except continuation of the tenancy and since the tenants failed to pay the rent, suits were filed against three of the four tenants in O.S.Nos.113 to 115 of 2019. After the new Act came into force, the landlord decided to work out the remedy under the aegis of 2017 Act, which came into force 22.02.2019.

¶19In my view, the proceedings initiated thus, so far before the Rent Court [District Munsif Court, Theni] under the provisions of the new Act cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, as admittedly, the tenancy agreements were signed prior to the commencement of the Act and had expired before the commencement of the 2017 Act. Thereafter, there was only continuation of the tenancy and therefore, it cannot be construed that there was a bar under the Act on the landlord from invoking the jurisdiction of the Rent Court under Section 21 of the Act.

¶20As per Section 4(1) of the new Act, after commencement of the new Act, no person shall let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing. Sub-Clause (2) deals with the situation in relation to tenancy created before commencement of the Act, where no agreement in writing was entered into, the landlord and the tenant shall enter an agreement into writing with regard to the tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the Act. If the landlord and the tenant fail to enter into an agreement under sub-section (2), the landlord or the tenant shall have the right to apply for termination of the tenancy under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 21. Thus, the provisions are clear. The parties have to arrange their affairs in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. If they fail, the consequence under Section 21 will stare at them and it is for the other party to invoke the jurisdiction.

¶21In my view, the stand of the tenants therefore cannot be sustained. Consequently, C.R.P.(MD)Nos.824, 926, 928 and 958 of 2023, seeking to assail the order passed in the respective Interlocutory Applications filed by the tenants are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the Rent Court [District Munsif Court], Theni, to dispose of R.L.T.O.P.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 of 2021, pending before him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1422 to 1425 of 2023 are allowed. No costs.

¶22In view of the above, all the interim orders in force shall stand vacated. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

28.06.2023 Internet : Yes/No smn2 To The District Munsif (Rent Court), Theni.

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 Common Order made in

28.06.2023