The Madras High Court has finally resolved the prolonged ambiguity surrounding the registration requirement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act), after delivering five successive judgments on the matter. The core question before the Court was whether registration of a tenancy agreement is a sine qua non for a landlord or tenant to seek relief under the provisions of the Act, particularly under Section 21(2).
The legislative background of the TNRRRLT Act, which came into force on 22 February 2019, replaced the earlier Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The new enactment introduced significant changes, including the removal of judicial fixation of fair rent and the recognition of oral tenancies. Crucially, it made written rental agreements and their registration a mandatory precondition for claiming reliefs under the Act. This provision, however, led to divergent interpretations by the Rent Courts across Tamil Nadu, creating uncertainty in practice.
The first significant pronouncement came in V. Manimegalai versus Selvaraj Kannan, where the Court held that the object and purpose of registration under the TNRRRLT Act was limited to validating the rental agreement as evidence. It emphasized that registration did not confer any substantive right beyond serving as proof of the agreement’s existence. Consequently, any case falling within the scope of Section 21(2) could be entertained by the rent courts irrespective of whether the agreement was registered.
This position was reaffirmed and elaborated upon in Muruganandam versus Joseph. In that judgment, the Court categorized tenancies into three types: (a) subsisting tenancies, (b) tenancies by holding over within six months after efflux of time, and (c) tenancies extending beyond the six-month holding over period. For categories (a) and (b), the Court clarified that landlords could avail of all remedies under the TNRRRLT Act, including those under Section 21(2), regardless of registration. However, for tenancies under category (c), approaching civil courts was deemed the only remedy.
The Court further noted that Section 21(2)(a) of the Act specifically addresses repossession on the ground of failure to enter into a written agreement in consonance with the Act. In such cases, registration remains irrelevant as the cause of action arises from the absence of a written agreement itself.
Despite the clarity in the reasoning of Muruganandam versus Joseph, a flowchart appended to the judgment created confusion by suggesting that registration was required in all scenarios (a), (b), and (c). This inconsistency led to conflicting interpretations by subordinate courts, necessitating further judicial intervention.
Subsequent judgments by the Madras High Court revisited the issue, each time refining the legal position. The cumulative effect of these pronouncements was to progressively narrow the ambit of uncertainty. The Court consistently emphasized that the legislative intent behind the registration requirement was procedural rather than substantive — to ensure authenticity and prevent fraudulent claims, not to bar access to relief.
After a sequence of five judgments, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court finally closed the debate. It held unequivocally that registration of a tenancy agreement is not a precondition for seeking relief under the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The Court reiterated that the purpose of registration is evidentiary — to prove the existence and terms of the agreement — and that non-registration does not disentitle a party from approaching the rent courts for relief under Section 21(2), provided other conditions of the Act are satisfied.
The Court clarified that for subsisting tenancies and those within the holding over period, landlords may proceed under the TNRRRLT Act irrespective of registration. Only in cases where the tenancy has continued beyond six months after the expiry of the agreement does the remedy lie in civil courts, due to the limitation imposed by the Act itself, not the registration requirement.
This final pronouncement brings clarity to a issue that had caused considerable litigation and administrative confusion since the enactment of the TNRRRLT Act. By affirming that registration is not a jurisdictional bar, the Madras High Court has aligned the interpretation of the Act with its objective of balancing the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants while ensuring access to justice.