The Madras High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has held that the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is a rent authority, does not have powers to order for recovery of possession as per the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. (Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala)
Facts of the case
The civil revision petition was filed by a Salem-based resident R Nalini. The revision petitioner sought a direction to set aside the fair order/ notice passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Suramangalam, Salem on July 7.
The RDO passed an order under 21 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 directing the petitioner to pay the full rent arrears for the commercial premises in Salem town within a period of 30 days to one landlord R Nirmala/respondent and noted that if the petitioner fails to adhere to the order, the eviction process will be initiated by the police.
Contention of the Parties
The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act. Under Section 21(2) of the Act, the Rent Court alone is competent to pass an order and the Revenue Divisional Officer usurped the powers of the Tribunal and thus, the order is directly in violation of the provisions of the Act and also passed without jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Rent Authority is also an authority under the provisions of the Act and she has not ordered for recovery of possession directly. The District Revenue Officer passed an order to pay the rent within a period of 30 days, failing which, actions are sought to be initiated. Therefore, there is no irregularity and the Civil Revision Petition is to be rejected.
Courts Observation and Order
The bench at the very outset observed, "Under Section 32, the Government may, by notification, constitute such a number of Rent Courts in as many urban areas as may be deemed necessary by it. It is not in dispute that the Rent Court has already been constituted and functioning.
Chapter V enumerates repossession of the premises by the landlord. Sub-Section (1) contemplates “A tenant shall not be evicted during the continuance of tenancy agreement except in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (2)."
The bench noted, "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the tenancy agreement continues. Therefore, the process for repossession of the premises by the landlord is to be taken only under the Sub-Section 2 to Section 21 of the Act.
Sub-Section 2 to Section 21 of the Act stipulates that “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:
“(b) that the tenant has not paid the arrears in full of rent payable and other charges payable as specified in sub-section (1) of section 13 for two months, including interest for delayed payment as may be specified for in the tenancy agreement or as prescribed, as the case may be, within one month of notice of demand for the arrears of such rent and all charges payable being served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in sub- section (4) of section 106 of he Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act IV of 1882):”"
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, "In the present case, the respondent filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the petitioner has failed to pay the monthly rent to the respondent and therefore, he is liable to be repossessed from the premises. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner and passed an order for payment of arrears of rent and in the event of failure to recover the possession. As per Section 21(2) of the Act, the Rent Court alone has got powers to entertain an application made by the landlord and the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain any such application under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act. When Section 21(2) of the Act contemplates that “the Rent Court may, on an application”, then the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the Rent Authority, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act and passed an order. Therefore, the respondent if at all aggrieved, ought to have approached the Rent Court by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suramangalam, Salem District, has erroneously exercised the powers under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act and thus, the order is to be construed as non est in law."
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments