Though the recently introduced new Tenancy Act in Tamil Nadu mandates compulsory registration of all rental agreements, the Madras high court has clarified that not registering the agreements would not be bar for the rent courts to entertain applications for termination of tenancy or repossession of rented premises.
“Section 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 right has been conferred on landlord as well as tenant to apply for termination of the tenancy under section 21 (2) (a), in case landlord and tenant failed to enter into an agreement.
Therefore, it cannot be construed that for approaching the rent court for getting relief of either termination of tenancy or repossession of the premises by the landlord, such application to be accompanied with a registered rental agreement,” Justice R Suresh Kumar said.
Therefore, unregistered rental agreement does not have an evidentiary value, in other words, it is inadmissible in evidence. Only to that purpose or to that extent alone, the effect of non-registration of rental agreement can be construed, the judge added.
The issue pertains to an appeal moved by V Manimegalai challenging the order passed a rent court in Chennai dated September 9 dismissing her application for repossession of rented premises for absence of unregistered rental agreement as mandated by the new tenancy act.
Moving the appeal, advocate PB Balaji contended that absence of registered rental agreement would not make an absolute bar for entertaining an application for repossession of rented property under the new act.
Concurring with the submission, Justice Suresh Kumar said that if at all the tenant, who is the respondent herein, takes a stand before the rent court that there has been no landlord-tenant relationship in the absence of registered rental agreement, then it is for the tenant to face the consequences as per the new act.
The court then directed the rent court to entertain the application and proceed in accordance with law.
