“DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

VISAKHAPATNAM, AP, INDIA”

PROJECT TITLE
“ANALYSIS OF TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE & RENT CONTROL) ACT 1960.

SUBJECT
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

FACULTY
PROF. P. JOGI NAIDU

NAME: ANJALI GURUMOORTHY

ROLL NUMBER: 2018012
SEMESTER: FOURTH

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe my profound acknowledgement to all those who made this project and research a success.
I am very much grateful to these people and hereby I present their names. I would like to express
my very sincere thanks to our faculty for Transfer of Property - I, Prof. P. Jogi Naidu Sir for
giving me this opportunity to research on this topic. Also, I would like to thank him for his
timely guidance and consultation. His contribution towards the development of this project has
been immense.

I sincerely and humbly thank my family and friends for constantly supporting me and helping me
and guiding me throughout.

Any omissions are deeply regretted.

2|Page
CONTENTS

OBJECT AND SCOPE:..................................................................................................................3

BUILDING:.....................................................................................................................................5
LANDLORD:..................................................................................................................................8
TENANT:......................................................................................................................................14
FAIR RENT:..................................................................................................................................17
DEPOSIT OF RENT:....................................................................................................................20
EVICTION OF TENANTS:..........................................................................................................23
BASIC AMENITIES:....................................................................................................................29
EXECUTION:...............................................................................................................................31
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS:..................................................................................32
APPEAL:.......................................................................................................................................33
REVISION :...................................................................................................................................34
PROCEEDINGS BY OR AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:.......................................35

3|Page
ANALYSIS OF RENT CONTROL ACT
In order to ascertain the effective implementation of the Rent Control Act, the first step is to
understand the provisions of the Rent Control Act and then test those provisions in the light of
the judicial pronouncements. Based on the interpretations made by the Courts on the various
provisions of the Act, its effectiveness can be arrived at.

OBJECT AND SCOPE:

Whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulations of the letting
of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the
prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants there from in the State of Tamil Nadu1.
The main object of the Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction and not to confer new rights on
the landlords. The legislation was enacted for achieving three purposes namely (a) the regulation
of letting, (b) the control of rent, and (c) the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants from
residential and non-residential buildings. As a piece of social reform in order to protect the
tenants from capricious and frivolous eviction, the legislature stepped in and afforded specials
protection to the tenant by conferring on him the status of a statutory tenant who could not be
evicted except under the conditions specified and the procedures prescribed by the provisions of
the Rent Control Act. It is well settled principle that where a statute is clear and explicit in its
terms with reference to any particular section, the section cannot be interpreted in some other
manner which is not consistent with the language employed.
The fundamental concept of interpretation is in the maxim A Verbia Legis Non Recedemdum
which means ‘from the words of law there should not be any departure’. If there is an ambiguity
or doubt about the language of a section of the Act and there are two constructions reasonably
possible or plausible of which one would upset the fundamental principles of law or produce
manifestly unreasonable or unjust
result while the other is free from such taint, the court must reject the former and accept the
latter.
While interpreting a statute it is the duty of the court that the provisions should be reasonably
and fairly read. They must be so construed as to cause least inconvenience and mischief if it can
be avoided. A construction which imposes unnecessary hardship on a person for no fault of his
1
Preamble of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

4|Page
own should not be easily accepted. The court must lean in favour of a harmonious construction,
and in doing so read the different parts of the statute as being consistent with each other and
attempt be made to harmonize apparently contradictory provisions keeping in view that no word
in enactment is superfluous and all words have full and proper meaning Where the languages of
a statute is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed prospectively only. It
must be borne in mind that many Acts though prospectively in form have been given
retrospective effect, if the intention of the legislature is apparent and it is more so when Acts are
passed to protect the public against some evil or abuses. In view of the above cardinal rules of
interpretation to the rent control legislations, it can safely be said that these legislations are
beneficial statutes and therefore the reasonable retrospective operation should be given to them
so as to subserve the purpose and object underlying them. The power under the unamended Act
was a limited power and it could operate prospectively and after amendment the Act provided for
a power which could be exercised retrospectively.
Though most of the provisions of the Act are obliviously thus intended to safeguard the rights of
the tenants, there are provisions which so far as they go are in favour of the landlords also. While
the mail object of the Act was to prevent arbitrary eviction of tenants, it took good care to see
that the interest of the landlords were also protected within reasonable limits. The rights of the
landlords cannot be curtailed by mere surmises.

BUILDING:
Building is a more generic word than house. The building need not have a roof while a house
must have. The size of the building is immaterial and hence the hut is also included in the
statutory definition. The terraced portion with a thatched shed which has been let out will also be
a building as defended in the Act. The conception of buildings has changed in the past few
decades.
Building means any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for
residential or non-residential purposes and includes –
(a) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any. Appurtenant to such building, hut or part of such
building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut,

5|Page
 (b) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of a building or
hut, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house2;
The definition of the word building in the 1946 and 1949 Act and also in the present Act is the
same. A structure without a roof cannot fall within the ambit of definition of building. The term
building has to be interpreted liberally and should include a structure laying some claim to
permanency and fulfilling a residential or non residential purpose. Wooden Structure along with
some land would fall under definition of building under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,
Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960 which is similar to the Tamil Nadu Act. A structure can
hardly be called a building unless it was capable occupation within the residential class or with
the class connected with commercial activity in some way or other3.
Whether a particular premises is a building or not within the meaning of section 2 (2) is to be
decided on the basis of the following factors namely,
(1) the nature of the premises;
(2) the intention of the parties at the time of granting the lease; and
(3) the purpose for which it was leased out.
Now-a-days the existence of flats one over the other are more and the flats are not merely
enjoyed separately but acquired, conveyed and owned separately. The modern concept of a
house or tenement has acquired a secondary signification. It includes also a flat. So where there
is a building which has two or more storeys, each flat or storey is a building 4. The idea of the
Legislature seems to have been to go a step further and to include within the definition any part
of even an ordinary house or hut not built in flats if let separately from the rest of the house or
hut. Building demolished by tenant with the permission of the Landlord and new structures put
up by him for the purpose of running a school. If the purpose for which the premises is let out
can be served only by putting up a new structure at the choice and cost of the tenant, certainly the
Act will not apply and such tenancy shall be deemed to be tenancy of the land alone. The Court
held that it is a lease of land and Rent Controller has no jurisdiction5.
Lease sometimes are of furnished buildings and that is why any furniture supplied by the
Landlord for use in such buildings is treated as part of the building. In the same strain, we may

2
Section 2(2) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
3
Irani vs Chidambaram Chettiar 1952(2) MLJ 221
4
A.C.Charities vs Sadhana Aushadalaya 1968 (2) MLJ 406
5
P.L.Mani vs M.M.Thenappa Chettiar 1997 (1) LW 844

6|Page
notice as a matter of common occurrence many fittings such as electrical fittings, sanitary
fittings, curtains and venetian blinds and air conditioning equipments being fitted in the buildings
by the landlords so that the tenants’ enjoyment may be more attractive. The crucial point is that
those additions are appurtenant, subservient and beneficial to the building itself.
A room in a hotel or boarding house is excluded from the definition presumably on the ground
that a part of building has been included in the definition of building and but for this exclusion a
room in a hotel or boarding house will be building and even a temporary occupant of a room
would claim the benefit under the Act. Room in a hotel must fulfill two conditions namely
(1) it must be part of hotel in physical sense, and
(2) its user must be connected with the general purpose of the hotel of which it is a part.
There is nothing in the definition about the purpose of the letting out. The Act no doubt exempts
a room in a hotel but it says nothing about the purpose for which the room should be let out to
get the exemption. Rooms let out for amenities like hairdresser, show-room, billiard room, post
office and banking facilities are all connected with hotel business and a barber’s shop is not
exception.
The statute recognizes a part of a building as building. The anxiety of the legislature in defining
the word building as including a part was perhaps only to obviate any contention which might be
urged by a tenant of a portion of a house from being evicted where sufficient grounds of eviction
are present and to confer the same privileges on a tenant of a part of the building as those
conferred upon a tenant in occupation of the whole. Parts of the building have to be rented out
whether it is single floor or even part of a floor in a storeyed building and at times even a single
room. A hut is a building for all purposes of the definition under the Act.
The term “let” in the definition apparently means let at the time of passing of the Act while “to
be let” means after the passing of the Act. The Act applies only to that species of “Letting” by
which the relationship of landlord and tenant is created in which interest in the property
howsoever limited in duration, is created. There is no clear definition in the Act for finding out
the meaning of residential or non-residential purpose. This definition no doubt lays emphasis on
the user of the building from the point of view of the purposes behind the letting whether it is for
residential or non-residential purpose.
Of course a building which is ordinarily let for residential or non residential purpose will not be
the bare walls, floor and roof but will have necessary amenities to make habitations happy. That

7|Page
is the reason why the legislature fairly included gardens, grounds, out houses, if any, appurtenant
to such building. Vacant land was let out for purpose of drying yard for a mill. In the absence of
pleading that it was leased out as appurtenant land to the rice mill, held suit alone is maintainable
and the property does not fall within the scope of section 2(2) of the Act.
The definition does not include the following:
(1) A room in a hotel or lodging housed or hostel or boarding house or sarai or dharmashala;
(2) Any industrial premises where the business carried on in or upon the building is also leased
out to the lessee by the same transaction and
(3) Any premises used as a factory.
The following accommodations, houses, buildings and premises have been exempted from the
operation of the Rent Control Acts:
(1) Any accommodation, building, house or premises belonging to the Central Government or a
state Government or a local authority;
(2) Any premises of which the tenancy is created by a grant from the central government or state
Government;
(3) Any premises belong to or, held by or used for a charitable or religious purposes;
(4) Any accommodations owned by any educational institution or nursing or maternity home and
(5) Other accommodations which the state Government may direct to be exempted from the
operation of the Act.

LANDLORD:
The landlord is defined under the Act and it is comprehensive enough to take in persons who are
not strictly landlords under general law. The definition of landlord is similarly worded in almost
all the Rent Control Acts, except the definition given in some Acts appears to be exhaustive
while in other Acts to be only enumerative.
Landlord includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building,
whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an
agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or
be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant;

8|Page
Explanation. – A tenant who sub-lets shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this
Act in relation to the sub-tenant6.
The word landlord as used in Rent Control Act is very wide in application and implication. It
requires only that a person who is either realizing or is entitled to realize the rent must be deemed
as landlord for the purpose of the Act, notwithstanding the fact he is not the actual lessor or the
owner of the premises.
Therefore the definition of landlord given in the Rent Control Act is absolutely different from
that what is given in the Transfer of property Act. As far as Rent control applications are
concerned it is not the ownership of the property that entitles a person to file an eviction petition
but when a person comes under the definition of landlord mentioned in section 2 (6) of the Act,
he is entitled to maintain a petition for eviction7.
The definition of the term landlord is of wide amplitude. The definition is an inclusive one and
does not actually define the term landlord. Therefore the inclusive definition adds to the normal
concept of landlord certain other categories of persons also. The heir of the landlord who was
collecting the rent, during the lifetime of the landlord is a landlord within the meaning of Section
2(6) and hence can maintain an application for eviction, after the demise of the landlord.
Landlord includes the Kartha of a joint family. When a building belonging to a joint family is
leased, the landlord is not the abstract juristic entity called joint family but the members who
constitute the joint family. Landlord taken in adoption by deed of adoption and the tenant refused
to accept the adopted son as landlord. The Court held that the adopted son is also a landlord and
order of eviction was confirmed8.
A co-owner can maintain a petition on behalf of the other co-owners also. Further, a co.owner is
as much owner of the entire property as any sole owner and is entitled to file petition for eviction
without impleading other co-owners. A co-owner can be treated as landlord and there is no
necessity for a co-owner to obtain written consent from the other co-owners for eviction of the
tenant. Only an agent of the landlord alone has to get previous written consent from the landlord.
The inclusive definition of landlord would clearly take in its sweep the landlord who holds a life
interest in the premises and who admittedly has been in his own right under the deed of
settlement as a trustee receiving rents of the premises from the tenants. The Usufructuary

6
Section 2(6) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
7
Nagalingam vs Ramaswamy Chettiar 1976(1) MLJ 149
8
Pankajam Ammal and others vs Thulasidoss and another 1998 2 LW 552

9|Page
mortgagee is also a Landlord within the meaning as defined under the Act. The chief tenant is
also a landlord within the meaning of landlord in so far as the sub tenant is concerned. In case of
Partnership firm, the partners of the firm will be the landlords. When a firm purchases property,
the purchase is really by its partners. Hence when a firm lets out a residential building belonging
to the firm, its partners become the landlords. The firm is merely a compendious name for
partners and when the firm purchased a premises, the property is really purchased by the partners
and after purchase the partners become landlords as per the definition under the Act which would
include partners of an unregistered firm also. A member of an association or a co-owner who
own a premises could be equated to the word landlord which precedes the parenthesis any
member of his family and the words any member of his family in context it appears in the statute
would also mean any co owner or the co owners or a member of the association which owns a
premises in question.
The High Court allowed petition filed by Respondent and set aside order of eviction passed by
Rent Controller and first Appellate Court on ground of non-joinder of daughter of original owner
and Appellants failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant with Respondent. The two
legal grounds on which the High Court allowed the revision petition, namely, that non-joinder of
one of the co-owners of the suit property (daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan) to the eviction
petition was fatal to the filing of eviction petition and secondly, the appellants were not able to
establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No.1 in relation to the suit
premises, have no merit and deserve rejection. Elaborating this submission, learned counsel
contended that so far as the first ground is concerned it is untenable in the light of the law laid
down by this Court in Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai and Other9s, wherein it is laid down that it is
not necessary to implead all the co-owners of the suit premises in eviction petition and even if
some of the co-owners have filed the eviction petition, it is maintainable in law. According to
learned counsel since this finding was recorded by the High Court without taking into
consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhanalal , the same deserves to be
set aside. In any event, the aforementioned infirmity was cured by the appellants factually
because the daughter of late A Radhakrishnan, Tmt R. Kanjana was later added as a party in the
eviction proceedings. In so far as the second ground is concerned, namely, respondent No. 1 was
inducted by Dhanapal in the suit premises and not by the appellants and, therefore, the appellants

9
(2002) 6 SCC 16

10 | P a g e
were not able to establish their relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No.1 also has
no merit for the reason that Dhanapal did not execute the tenancy agreement with respondent
No.1 in his capacity as owner/landlord of the suit premises but executed the said tenancy
agreement on behalf of late A. Radhakrishnan as his power of attorney holder.
Before we proceed to examine the issues raised in this appeal, we consider it apposite to take
note of the law laid down by this Court on three issues which are involved in this appeal, viz.,
issue in relation to revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters; second, the
scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters; and
third, whether all the co-owners/co landlords of suit premises are necessary parties in the
eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws and lastly law relating to power of attorney executed
by principal in favour of his agent.
Similarly, so far as the scope and nature of inquiry, which is required to be undertaken to
examine the title of the landlord in eviction matter is concerned, it also remains no more res
integra and stands settled in the case of Sheela & Ors. vs Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 10.
Justice R.C.Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held that the concept of
ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished
from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on
the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the
owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone
else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What
may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or
may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. Likewise, so far
as issue pertaining to joinder of all co-owners in eviction petition filed against the tenant under
the Rent Laws is concerned, the same also remains no more res Integra and stands settled by
several decisions of this Court. In Dhannalal vs Kalawathibai Ors., this Court took note of all
case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C.Lahoti
(as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under “It is well
settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely Sri Ram Pasricha vs Jagannath11, Kanta

10
(2002) 3 SCC 375
11
(1976) 4 SCC 184

11 | P a g e
Goel vs B.P. Pathak12 and Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh13, that one of the co-owners can alone and
in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to
question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as
parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is
owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property
along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the
property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for
eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object.
In Sri Ram Pasricha case reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or
more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for
occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the
landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta
and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This
Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute
and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also
satisfied the requirement of being “if he is the owner”, the expression as employed by Section
13(1)(f) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.”
In the light of law laid down in the case of Dhannalal, in our view, it was not necessary for the
appellants to implead the Tmt. R. Kanjana – the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan in the
eviction petition. Even otherwise, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the appellants, the
High Court should not have allowed respondent No.1 to raise such objection for the first time in
the revision because it was not raised in the courts below. Be that as it may, the daughter having
been later impleaded in the proceedings, this objection was not even available to respondent
No.1. In view of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the finding of the High Court and
while reversing the finding hold that the eviction petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of
non-joinder of Tmt. R. Kanjana – the daughter of late A. Radhakrishnan and is held
maintainable.
Now coming to the question as to whether the tenancy was between the appellants and
respondent No.1 or whether it was between Dhanapal and respondent No.1, we are of the
considered view that to begin with the tenancy was between A. Radhakrishanan and respondent
12
(1977) 2 SCC 814
13
(1989) 1 SCC 444

12 | P a g e
No.1 and on the death of A. Radhakrishnan, it was created between the appellants being the
Class-I heirs of A. Radhakrishnan and respondent No.1 by operation of law. In our opinion,
Dhanapal was a power of attorney holder of A. Radhakrishnan. He executed the tenancy
agreement on behalf of the original owner – A. Radhakrishnan in favour of respondent No.1.
Such act done by Dhanapal did not create any right, title and interest in his favour and nor he
ever asserted any such right in himself and indeed rightly qua A. Radhakrishnan or the appellants
in relation to suit premises. That apart, respondent No.1 in clear terms admitted in his evidence
and in the pleading of cases filed by him against the appellants about his status as being the
tenant. In the light of this legal position, the High Court should have held this issue in appellants’
favour. The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Power of
Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney
always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal. Any document executed or thing done
by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name
of principal, i.e., by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the
principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the
principal. Any act or thing done by the agent on the strength of power of attorney is, therefore,
never construed or/and treated to have been done by the agent in his personal capacity so as to
create any right in his favour but is always construed as having done by the principal himself. An
agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature. When we apply this well settled
principle of law to the facts of the case in hand, we are of the considered view that when
Dhanapal, who was acting as an agent of A. Radhakrishnan on the strength of power of attorney,
executed the tenancy agreement with respondent No. 1 in relation to the suit premises then he did
such execution for and behalf of his principal –A Radhakrishnan, which resulted in creating a
relationship of landlord and tenant between A. Radhakrishnan and respondent No. 1 in relation to
the suit premises. In this execution, Dhanapal being an agent did not get any right, title and
interest of any nature either in the suit premises or in tenancy in himself. The effect of execution
of tenancy agreement by an agent was as if A. Radhakrishnan himself had executed with
respondent No.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court was not right in holding that the tenancy in relation to suit premises was with
Dhanapal. We cannot thus concur with the finding of the High Court and accordingly reverse the
finding and hold that the appellants were able to prove that the tenancy in relation to the suit

13 | P a g e
premises was between A. Radhakrishnan and respondent No.1 and on the death of A.
Radhakrishnan, it was created between the appellants and respondent No.1 by operation of law
which entitled the appellants to maintain the eviction petition against respondent No.1 seeking
his eviction on the grounds available to them under the Act. In the light of foregoing discussion,
the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the
judgment of the first appellate Court is restored. As a consequence thereof, the eviction petition
filed by the appellants against respondent No.1 in relation to the suit premises is allowed.
The expression landlord includes a trustee who was receiving rent on account and on behalf of
the Sangh. The word landlord cannot be cut down as meaning only the owner and not all the
persons namely trustees enumerated within the definition of landlord. A person who is a landlord
under Transfer of property of Act (Lessee) will be a landlord for the purpose of the Rent Act also
and a lessee can maintain an eviction petition. Where a Managing Trustee after the execution of
the lease had no right to collect rent from any tenant and the transferee lessee had the right, the
lessee was a landlord. The Executors, Administrations, Receiver, official assignee are also
landlord within the meaning of the Act. Receiver is a landlord and tenant is entitled to avail
himself the provisions of the Act.
The comparative study of the definition as given in the Rent Control Acts include the following
persons in the terms
(1) the owner of the premises,
(2) the person receiving the rent for the time being,
(3) the Person entitled to realize(receive) the rent and
(4) the agents, trustees, executors, administrators, receivers or guardian of the above mentioned
person.
“Member of his family” in relation to a landlord means his spouse, son, daughter, grand-child or
dependent parent14. The word member of the family may also include not only spouse, dependant
parents, son, daughter, but also any other persons like sister’s son, foster son, daughter-in-law etc
depending upon the facts of the case. The definition does not exclude a married daughter. The
word daughter has been given its widest amplitude to include married, unmarried and even
widowed daughter.

14
Section 2(6A) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

14 | P a g e
TENANT:
The definition of the word tenant as given in the Rent control Acts, is indicative of the widest
meaning assigned to it, but it is to be limited in accordance with the scope of the term of a
particular Act. While some Acts define the term tenant as a person by whom or on whose behalf
the rent is payable, the other Acts include the sub tenant also.
Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and
includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased
tenant who –
(i) in the case of a residential building, had been living with the tenant in the building as
a member of the tenant’s family up to the death of the tenant, and
(ii) in the case of a non-residential building, had been in continuous association with the
tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of the tenant up to the death of the
tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter, and a person continuing in
possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a
person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the
collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughterhouse or of rents
for shops has been farmed out or leased by a Municipal Council or a Panchayat Union
Council or the Municipal Corporation of Madras or the Municipal Corporation of
Madurai15.
The term tenant has not been uniformly defined in all rent control Acts and therefore while
interpreting the definition in one Act the analogous definition given in the another Act should be
carefully examined. In this connection it must also be borne in mind that the definition of tenant
given under the rent control Acts is wider than the definition given under the Transfer of
property Act.
The definition of tenant under the Act would include both a tenant during the subsistence of
contractual tenancy and a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy. The
statute creates a statutory tenancy even in respect of persons continuing in possession after the
termination of tenancy. The Legal representatives, surviving spouse, son or daughter will come
within the ambit of Section 2(8) of the Act. Only those legal representatives or surviving spouse,
son or daughter who were living with or associated with the deceased tenant in respect of

15
Section 2 (8) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

15 | P a g e
residential or non residential buildings as the case may be can claim the benefits of continuing as
statutory tenant. Investment of money by wife in husband’s business is sufficient to clothe her
with the claim as a heir associated with him to get the benefits of Section 2(8). In the absence of
any definition of the word person the ordinary meaning and not the restricted meaning of legal
person should be given. A reference to Section 3(22) of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act
should be made as it includes any company or association of individuals whether incorporated or
not. Hence the expression person in section 2(8) of the Act would include individual, company
or association of individuals.
In order to fall within the definition of tenant contained in the Act the assent or consent of the
landlord is totally unnecessary and immaterial and even assuming that a person continues in
possession after the termination of tenancy in his favour by the landlord and a decree is also
obtained against such person in so far as the definition of the tenant in the Act does not exclude
such a person from claiming the benefits as a tenant. The definition of a tenant includes those
continuing in possession notwithstanding the term of the tenancy had expired and even those
against whom decrees for eviction had been passed by Civil Courts under which eviction had not
taken place. Even if the family is not divided and the house technically remains as an asset of the
joint family and if a member agrees to pay rent to the other members, he is a tenant because
“tenant” according to the definition means any person by whom is payable. Having regard to the
legal concept of attornment, it was held that it does not create a new tenancy between the parties
to the attornment, but continues the existing lease with the substitution of a new landlord in the
place of the old landlord.
The definition of tenancy given in the Rent control Act does not include within its ambit the
persons who are licensees. The tenancy created by a mortgage in possession comes to an end the
moment the mortgage is redeemed and unless there is a fresh forging of the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the mortgagor and the erstwhile tenant either by voluntary acts of
the parties or by deeming provisions in the Act, the erstwhile tenant cannot claim any protection
under the Rent control Act which is meant only for tenants against their landlords and not for
erstwhile tenants against mortgagor.
Prior to the amendment the definition contemplates only residential building and would have no
application to non – residential building. For the first time it makes provisions for non residential
buildings. The provisions regarding a residential building are different from the provisions

16 | P a g e
regarding a non–residential building . The sine quanon for a person enumerated in the definition
to become tenant under the Act in respect of a residential building is that such a person should
have been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant’s family up to the
death of the tenant. With regard to non – residential building the sin qua non is that such a person
should have been in continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the
business of the tenant up to the death of the tenant and continue to carry on such business
thereafter. It will be clear that the definition of tenant under the Act took in only certain
enumerated relatives or legal representatives who had been living with the tenant in the building
as members of the tenant’s family up to his death.
The comparative study of the term tenant under various rent control Acts, includes the following
classes of persons as tenants:
(1) person by whom the rent payable,
(2) person on whose behalf the rent is payable,
(3) person by whom the rent of any accommodation would have been payable but a contract
express or implied,
(4) sub tenant,
(5) person continuing in possession after the termination of contractual tenancy,
(6) successor, heir or assignee of the tenant and
(7) member of the tenant’s family residing with him.

FAIR RENT:
Among the objects for which the Rent Control Act has been enacted is Control of Rents. Due to
urbanization and consequent migration of people from rural areas to urban agglomeration, there
is high demand for accommodation which resulted in spiraling of rents. The Landlords dictated
the quantum of rent at high rates as the accommodation available was scant. In some places, the
contractual rent already agreed between parties become very low by efflux of time and the
Landlord is receiving very low rent. In order to protect the rights of both the Landlord and
Tenant, the Rent Control Act provides for fixation of fair rent. The application for fixation of fair
rent can be filed either by the Landlord or by the Tenant and ultimately the Rent Control Act
aims at reasonable and Fair rent.

17 | P a g e
 (1) The Controller shall on application made by the tenant or the landlord of a building and after
holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, fix the fair rent for such building in accordance with the
principles set out in the following sub-sections.
(2) The fair rent for any residential building shall be nine per cent gross return per annum on the
total cost of such building.
(3) The fair rent for any non-residential building shall be twelve per cent gross return per annum
on the total cost of such building.
(4) The total cost referred to in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) shall consist of the market
value of the site in which the building is constructed, the cost of construction of the building and
the cost of provision of anyone or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I as on the date of
application for fixation of fair rent:
Provided that while calculating the market value of the site in which the building is constructed,
the Controller shall take into account only that portion of the site on which the building is
constructed and of a portion up to fifty per cent, thereof of the vacant land, if any, appurtenant to
such building the excess portion of the vacant land, being treated as amenity:
Provided further that the cost of provision of amenities specified in Schedule I shall not exceed –
(i) in the case of any residential building, fifteen per cent; and
(ii) in the case of any non-residential building, twenty-five per cent, of the cost of site in which
the building is constructed, and the cost of construction of the building as determined under this
Section.
(5) (a) The cost of construction of the building including cost of internal water-supply, sanitary
and electrical installations shall be determined with due regard to the rates adopted for the
purpose of estimation by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area
concerned. The Controller may, in appropriate cases, allow or disallow an amount not exceeding
thirty per cent, of construction having regard to the nature of construction of the building.
(b) The Controller shall deduct from the cost of construction determined in the manner specified
in clause (a), depreciation, calculated at the rates specified in Schedule II16.
Under section 4, sub section (2) either the tenant or the landlord can file application for fixation
of fair rent and the rent controller after making such enquiry according to the guidance and
principles laid down in other sub section of section 4.

16
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

18 | P a g e
The fair rent shall be nine per cent gross return per annum in the case of residential building and
twelve per cent gross return per annum in the case of non residential building on the total cost of
such building. This has been laid down in sub section (2) and (3) includes the market value of
the provisions of the amenities specified in schedule I. While calculating the market valve of the
title, up to fifty per cent of the portion of the site on which the building is constructed of the
vacant land and the excess portion of the vacant land as amenity. In the cost of site in which the
building is constructed and cost will be the cost of provision of amenities. In the case of
residential buildings, it shall not exceed fifteen per cent and in the case of non residential
building twenty five per cent. The cost of construction of the building includes the cost of basic
amenities such as internal water – supply, sanitary and electrical installations which are
determined according to the rates adopted by the P.W.D. of the government.
The above determination of the cost of construction is laid down sub section (5) clause (a) of
the section 4 of this enactment. After the determination of the cost of construction or the
Building as specified in section 4 (5) (a) the depreciation calculated at the rate as specified in
schedule II shall be deducted.
The amenities specified under Schedule – I are:
(1) Air Conditioner,
(2) Lift,
(3) Water Cooler,
(4) Electrical Heater,
(5) Fridge,
(6) Mosaic flooring,
(7) Side dadoos
(8) Compound Walls,
(9) Garden,
(10) Over – head tank for water supply,
(11) Electric pump and motor for water supply,
(12) Playground,
(13) Badminton and tennis court,
(14) Sun– breakers,
(15) Amenity referred to in the first proviso to subsection (4) of S.4,

19 | P a g e
(16) Usufructs, if any enjoyed by the tenant and
(17) Features of special architectural interest
The rate of depreciation will be applied as specified in the Schedule – II of the Act to arrive at
the depreciated value of the building to arrive at the fair rent for the building. The rate of
depreciation depends on the type of building.
Accordingly the rate of depreciation for
(1) Type I building ie. Buildings built in lime mortar and in which teak had been used throughout
is 1 per cent,
(2) Type II building ie. Buildings built partly of brick in lime mortar and party of brick in mud
and in which teak flats been used is 1 ½ per cent,
(3) Type III building ie. Building built in brick in mud and in which country wood had been used
is 2 per cent and
(4) Type IV building ie. Buildings which are inferior to those of class 3 with brick in mud
unplastered walls and mud floors and in which cheap country wood has been used is 4 per cent.
The depreciation shall be calculated for each year on the net value arrived at after deducting the
amount of depreciation for the previous year. The amount of depreciation shall in no case be less
than ten per cent of the cost of construction of the building.
The actual depreciation of a building aged ‘n’ years is calculated by using the formula:
P = A [ 100 – r/ 100 ] n
Where A = total cost of construction of the building. r = rate of depreciation per annum. n = of
the building. (ie.number of years) p = the final depreciated value of the building. The amount of
depreciation will be equal to ( A – P ) subject to a minimum of ten per cent of ‘A’.

DEPOSIT OF RENT:
The deposit of Rent can be made by the tenant before the Controller under certain circumstances
and in other circumstances the tenant has to deposit the rent before such Authority as prescribed
in the enactment. In case when the landlord refuses or evades to receive the rent payable or when
the tenant is unaware about the address of the landlord or his authorized agent to pay the rent,
then the rent can be deposited before the Rent Controller. Similarly, when the proceedings for
eviction is pending before the Rent Controller or Rent Control Appellate Authority and if the
tenant is in arrears of rent or if the tenant raised any dispute as to the amount of rent, the rent

20 | P a g e
shall be deposited or paid as per the order in the proceedings. In case of failure by the tenant to
deposit the arrears of rent as ordered by the court, the tenant will lose his right to defend the
eviction proceedings. When there is any bonafide doubt or dispute as to the person who is
entitled to receive the rent for any building, then the tenant may deposit the rent before the
prescribed authority under the Act. The authority prescribed in so far as Chennai City is
Collector of Chennai and in so far as other districts in Tamil Nadu is Revenue Divisional
Officers concerned17.
(1) Every landlord who receives any payment towards rent or advance shall issue a receipt
duly signed by him for the actual amount of rent or advance received by him.
(2) Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to
him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require
the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a
bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord;
Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is
situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village, within (five kilometers) of the
limits thereof.
Explanation – It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to
the tenant and subject to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from
the one already specified by him under this subsection.
(3) If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank
and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in
respect of the building.
(4) If the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the
landlord by Money Order, after deducting the money order commission.
(5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by Money Order under sub-section (4),
the tenant may deposit the rent before the Controller and continue to deposit with him
any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building18.
According to section 8(1) it is mandatory for the landlord to issue duly signed receipt for the
actual amount of rent or advance which he has received. If the landlord refuses to accept or
evades to receive any rent lawfully payable by the tenant in respect of the rented premises, then
17
G.O.Ms.43, Housing and Urban Development dt.25.01.2001
18
Section 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

21 | P a g e
the tenant may issue notice directing the landlord to specify a bank to deposit the rent lawfully
payable to him within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is always open to the
landlord to specify another bank instead of one which he has already specified. Where a landlord
specifies a bank then the tenant has to deposit the same in respect of the building. After issuing
notice to the landlord to specify a bank, if the landlord does not specify a bank, it is mandatory
for the tenant to remit the rent to the landlord by way of Money order after deducting the money
order commission.
Suppose the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by the tenant as per subsection (4) or
section B, the tenant may deposit and continue to deposit the rent before the controller.
In section 8 the following aspects are mandatory, namely:
(a) issue of duly signed receipt for the rent and advance paid,
(b) deposit of rent into bank, if the landlord has specified a bank,
(c) to send the rent by money order after deducting the money order commission when the
landlord refuses to specify a bank. The deposit of rent before the rent Controller is not
mandatory but it is only discretion of the tenant.
Section 9 of the Rent Control Act speaks about certain cases in which the rent may be deposited
by the tenant. When the address of the landlord or his authorized agent is not known to the tenant
then he may deposit and continues to deposit the rent lawfully payable in respect of the rented
premises before the controller.
Likewise if there is any bonafide doubt or dispute as to the person who is entitled to receive the
rent, the tenant may deposit and continue to deposit before such authority as may be prescribed
and to report the same to the controller. On application the amount that is the rent deposited
under section 8 or 9 may be withdrawn by the person who is entitled to the amount so deposited
according to the Rent Controller.
No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section
10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that Section, or to
prefer any appeal under Section 23 against any order made by the Controller on the application,
unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Controller or the Appellate
Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of
payment or deposits, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently

22 | P a g e
become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the
Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be.
Section 11 of the Act deals with the payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of
proceedings for eviction.
(2) The deposit of rent under Sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the
manner prescribed.
(3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-
section (1) the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, on
application made to him either by the tenant or by the landlord, and after making such
inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited.
(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the
Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to
the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession of the building.
(5) The amount deposited under Sub-section (1) may, subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him in that behalf to the
Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case maybe19.
The proceedings under the section primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant and the section
authorizes the Controller after giving the parties opportunities of being heard to make an order
directing the tenant to pay the amount found on calculation to be due to the landlord or to deposit
with the Controller within one month from the date of the order. Such an order could be passed
by the Controller for the benefit of the tenant only if the Controller decides that the person
against whom the proceedings for eviction had been initiated was in the position of a tenant.
Thus any order passed by the Controller either under the Section or other section of the Act
assumes that the Controller has jurisdiction to make the order, ie to determine the issue of
relationship.

19
Section 11 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

23 | P a g e
EVICTION OF TENANTS:
One of the prime objects of the Rent Control Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction of the
tenants at the hands of the Landlords. The Rent Control Act is a Special enactment which
overrides the general enactment i.e. Transfer of Property Act.
As per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Landlord i.e. Lessor need not assign
any reason to evict a tenant. The tenants are in occupation of the premises purely at the mercy of
the Landlords. The Rent Control Act categorically provides that no tenant can be evicted without
any reasons. The Landlords are duty bound to specify the reasons provided in the Act ie the
reasons for which the tenant can be evicted and then obtain the order of eviction upon proving
the grounds of eviction before the Rent Controller. Certain grounds on which the tenant is liable
to be evicted is based on the conduct on the tenant. But certain other grounds of eviction are
based on the necessity and requirement of the Landlord.
Section 10 states:
(1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in
accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 14 to 1620;
Provided that nothing contained in the said Sections, shall apply to a tenant whose
landlord is the Government.
Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of
permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide
and if the records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction
of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the
grounds mentioned in the said Sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such
denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in
that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the application, is satisfied –
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the
building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of
tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day
of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, or

20
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

24 | P a g e
 (ii) that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945 without the written consent of the
landlord –
(a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or
any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so,
or
(b) used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was
leased, or
(iii) that the tenant has committed or caused to be committed such acts of
waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building, or
(iv)that the tenant has been convicted under any law for the time being in force of an
offence of using the building or allowing the building to be used for immoral or
illegal purposes, or
(v) that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to
the occupiers of other portions in the same building or of buildings in the
neighbourhood, or
(vi)that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant
has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without
reasonable cause, or
(vii) that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent
tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bona fide, the Controller shall make
an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and
if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the
application;
Provided that in the any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant’s
default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the
rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or
tender, the application shall be rejected.
[Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section, default to pay or tender rent shall be
construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after
the issue of two month’s notice by the landlord claiming the rent].

25 | P a g e
 (3) (a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) apply to the Controller for an
order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building –
(i) in case it is residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation
or for the occupation of [any member of his family] and if he or [any member of
his family] is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or
village concerned;
(ii) in case it is a non-residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a
vehicle or adapted for such use, if the landlord requires it for his own use or for
the use of [any member of his family] and if he or [any member of his family] is
not occupying any such building in the city, town or village concerned which is
own;
Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an
instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three
months from the date on which the instrument was registered;
Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause, he
shall not be entitled to apply again under this clause –
(i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of
another residential building of his own;
(ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of
another non-residential building of his own.
(b) where the landlord of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is a religious,
charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is required for the
purpose of the institution, apply to the Controller, subject to the provisions of clause (d), for an
order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.
(c) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential,
may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order
directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to
put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential
purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.

26 | P a g e
(d) where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant,
the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this subsection before the expiry of such period.
(e) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an
order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as maybe
specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order
rejecting the application.
Provided that, in the case of an application under clause (c), the Controller shall reject the
application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it
will outweigh the advantage to the landlord;
Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the
landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months
in the aggregate21.
Section 12 states; (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the
provisions of Section 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he
is satisfied –
(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot
be carried out without the building being vacated; or
(b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of
demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on
the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver
possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.
(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this Section shall be
passed –
(a) on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section(1), unless the landlord gives an
undertaking that the building shall, on completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, who
delivered possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) for his reoccupation before
the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession by the landlord, or before the
expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow;
or

21
Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

27 | P a g e
(b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of sub-section(1), unless the landlord gives an
undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be
substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the
expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the
expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing allow.
(3) Nothing contained in this Section shall entitle the landlord who has recovered possession of
the building for repairs to convert a residential building into a non-residential building or a non-
residential building into a residential building unless such conversion is permitted by the
Controller at the time of passing an order under sub-section (1).
(4) Notwithstanding an order passed by the Controller under clause (a) of subsection (1)
directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building, such tenant shall be deemed to continue
to be the tenant, but the landlord shall not be entitled to any rent for the period commencing on
the date of delivery of possession of the building by the tenant to the landlord and ending with
the date on which the building is offered to the tenant by the landlord in pursuance of the
undertaking under clause (a) of subsection (2).
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any landlord of a building in respect of which the
government shall be deemed to be the tenant to make any application under this section22.
A landlord can evict the tenants only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In order to
protect the tenants from unlawful eviction by the landlord, the Act specifies certain grounds for
eviction. Except those grounds a landlord cannot evict the tenants. Those grounds of eviction are
(A) Wilful Default,
(B) Sub – letting,
(C) Different User,
(D) Act of Waste,
(E) Illegal Purpose,
(F) Act of nuisance,
(G) Cease to Occupy,
(H) Denial of Title,
(I) Personal Occupation,
(J) Additional Accommodation and

22
Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

28 | P a g e
(K) Demolition and Reconstruction.
“Evict” literally means “expel by legal process”. Eviction consists in the physical act of throwing
out the tenant from the building which he is occupying. The question of evicting a person in
execution of a decree can only mean physically throwing out a person pursuant to a decree
already passed directing delivery of possession of the property. The Act did not intend any
difference between the words “evict” and the words “direct the tenant to put the landlord in
possession”.
The above mentioned eleven grounds are the grounds by which the landlord can evict any
tenants. After the general discussion upon the Section 10, each ground of eviction is explained.
Section 10 is a complete code for the eviction of tenants on certain grounds with a special
machinery provided for the decision. The section takes away the landlord unrestrictive power to
evict the tenants. Section 10 places an embargo on the right of a landlord to get a tenant evicted
except in accordance with the provisions of that section or sections 14 to 16. The sections are
based on public policy. It is intended to protect the weaker section of the community with a view
to ultimately protecting the interests of the community in general by creating equality of
bargaining power. Although the section is purely intended for the protection of tenants only, the
protection is based on public policy.

BASIC AMENITIES:
The Tenant is entitled for basic amenities and in case any of the amenities are withhold, then the
tenant has remedy under law. The basic amenities are water, electricity and drainage. The basic
amenities stated supra will be taken into account while calculating the fair rent for the building.
Accordingly, (1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold or cause
to be cut off or withheld any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant or were in existence during
the previous tenancy.
(2) A tenant in occupation of a building may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of
this Section, make an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention.
(3) If the tenant satisfies the Controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld, or caused to
be cut off or withheld, the controller may pass an interim order, directing the landlord to restore
the amenities immediately, pending the inquiry referred to in sub-section (4). An interim order
may be passed under this sub-section without giving notice to the landlord:

29 | P a g e
Provided that if the amenities are not restored within seven days from the date of the interim
order, the Controller may permit the tenant to restore the amenities at his own cost and recover
the cost of the expenses incurred by the tenant in respect of restoration of such amenities from
the rent payable to the landlord in such monthly installments as may be specified by the
Controller.
(4) If the Controller or inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities or that
the amenities were in existence during the previous tenancy and that they were cut off or
withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause or if the landlord was in any way
responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld, he shall make an order directing the
landlord to restore such amenities.
(5) The Controller may, in his discretion, direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees –
(a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made
frivolously or vexatiously;
(b) be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the amenities or
was in any way responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld frivolously or vexatiously.
In this Section, the expression 'amenities' includes supply or water, electricity, passages,
staircases, light, lavatories, lifts and conservancy or sanitary services23.
Any application for eviction or fixation of fair rent or deposit of rent into court or restoration of
amenities presented before the Rent Controller has to be disposed of in accordance with the rules
specified under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rule 1974. Every application
filed under the Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller should be strictly in accordance with
Rule 1124. According to the Rule25, every application should contain the particulars as specified
in Rules 3 and 4 and should be signed by the applicant as well as his/her/their counsel. (1) When
an application is presented under Rule 11, the Controller or the authorized officer or an officer
authorized by him, as the case may be, shall fix the date on which and the place at which the
inquiry in respect of the application will be held and send notice thereof to the applicant or
applicants and the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application and shall also send a
copy of the application along with the notice to the respondent or respondents.

23
Section 17 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
24
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules 1974
25
Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules 1974.

30 | P a g e
(2) The Controller or the authorized officer or an officer authorized by him, as the case may be
shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief
note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any examined on either side; and upon the
evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be
produced by the parties, pass orders on the application.
(3) In any case in which an order is passed exparte against a tenant or landlord, or any order of
dismissal for default is passed by the Controller, then the party affected may within thirty days
from the date of order or if he satisfies the Controller that he knew of the order only on a
subsequent date, within thirty days from the date of such knowledge apply to the Controller by
whom the exparte order or the order of dismissal was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he
satisfies the Controller that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any
sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing or that such
default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, the Controller shall make an
order setting aside the exparte order or the order of dismissal passed, as the case may be, upon
such terms as to costs as the Controller thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the
application.
Provided that no order shall be set aside on any such application as aforesaid unless notice
thereof has been served on the opposite party:
Provided further that in computing the period of thirty days for the purpose of this sub rule the
time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order shall be excluded:
Provided also that where an application for setting aside an exparte order or an order of dismissal
for default has been received under this sub rule for the first time, all execution proceedings in
pursuance of the exparte order or the order of dismissal for default shall be stayed until the
disposal of the application:
Provided also that in respect of a second or subsequent application to set aside an exparte order
or an order of dismissal for default, the Controller shall have discretion to grant or refuse stay.26

EXECUTION:
Execution of the order made by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate authority or by the High
Court under Revision shall be made as contemplated under the Act. Execution of the order

26
Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules 1974.

31 | P a g e
means it relates predominantly order of eviction and to some extent order granting restoration of
amenities like water, electricity and drainage. Execution of the order means enforcement or
implementation of the order passed by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority or the High
Court. Under the present Rent Control Act the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller cannot be
executed and it can be recovered only by initiating civil proceedings by way of suit for recovery
of the rent payable.
Execution as stated supra refers mostly in respect of the order of eviction.
Only through execution, the Landlord can take vacant possession of the premises let out to the
tenant after getting an order of eviction. The limitation period for preferring the execution
petition is 12 years similar to the case of civil decree. In cases where the order of eviction has
been passed after contest by the tenant, then in the execution proceedings no notice is required to
the tenant and the Rent Controller can directly order delivery of possession. When the Rent
Controller passed the order of delivery of possession, the Landlord/Decree Holder can take
vacant possession of the demised premises with the help of the bailiff. In execution of the order
of eviction, the Rent Controller has all the powers of the Civil Court and the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code relating to execution will be applicable.
At the time of taking possession of the demised premises in the execution proceedings pursuant
to the order of eviction, if the demised premises is under lock and key, then the Landlord can
obtain suitable order from the Rent Controller for break open the lock and to take vacant
possession of the demised premises. Similarly in the opinion of the landlord and based on the
report of the bailiff that there is every likelihood of law and order problem and assistance of the
Police authorities is required in execution of the order of eviction, then the Rent Controller has
got ample powers to order police protection while taking vacant possession in execution of the
order of eviction. The tenant or the person who is in possession of the demised premises has all
the rights available as contemplated under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. The
executability of the order of eviction can be challenged under Section 47 of Civil Procedure
Code.
(1) Every order made under sections 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal
under Section 23 or on revision under Section 25 shall be executed by the Controller, as if such
order is an order of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of
a Civil Court.

32 | P a g e
(2) An order passed in execution under Sub-section (1) shall not be subject to
any appeal or revision.27

APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS:
The Controller shall have powers to appoint a Commissioner in any proceeding pending before
him and for this purpose, he shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908).28
The power of the Rent Controller to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection is
for better appreciation of evidence already on record. A commissioner appointed is not
performing a judicial act but only a ministerial act.
Normally, the Commissioner is appointed to throw light upon the matter in issue which means
main issues and facts leading to such issues. The court can appoint a Commissioner for
clarification of any fact or proof of the matter in issue which requires elucidation. Such report
just does not automatically form part of evidence.
Opportunity must be given to the opposite party to cross examine the Commissioner also. The
object is only to assist the Court by placing a report of local investigation. But, however orders
appointing a commissioner should not become a lever to promote ingenious litigation resulting in
delay in disposal of the matter. A party can ask for appointment of a commissioner even after
closure of his side for the purpose of clarification or explanation and proof of the matter in issue
or a fact which requires elucidation.
In a petition for fixation of fair rent, an application was filed for an appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner. Plea by the respondent that a report of an Advocate Commissioner cannot be a
substitute for actual proof. Held order of appointment of Commissioner is in order as the
landlord is cautious in having the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court so that he can
take an engineer of his choice and file a report. However report alone would not be an evidence
unless the contents are spoken to by the author of the report. When the Advocate Commissioner
has taken the assistance of an engineer in arriving at the fair rent, when the warrant did not
empower him to do so the same does not amount to acting in excess of the warrant or
contravention of the same. In any event any defect or irregularity, if any can be pointed out at the

27
Section 18 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
28
Section 18-A of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

33 | P a g e
time of trial. Scrapping the report is not warranted merely on the ground that assistance of an
engineer was taken.
Where an advocate was appointed as Commissioner to report about the extent of repairs needed,
it was held that the Appellate Authority had no justification to brush aside the same on the
ground that the commissioner did not have any technical or engineering knowledge of the
building. The Commissioner’s report stating about the dilapidated condition of the building is
sufficient to hold that there is no infirmity in the order of eviction.

APPEAL:
When an order has been passed by the Rent Controller on an application for fixation of fair rent
or eviction or restoration of amenities, the person who is aggrieved by that order of the Rent
Controller has remedy by way of appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority within the time
limit stipulated under the Rent Control Act. When the person so aggrieved could not prefer the
appeal within the time stipulated due to any bonafide reasons, the Appeal can be preferred along
with the petition for condonation of delay and the Appellate Authority has ample powers to
invoke the provisions of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Every
appeal preferred has to be accompanied by the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller.
If the appeal is preferred within the prescribed time from the date of order, the appeal can be
filed even without the certified copy of the order under challenge. At the same time the appeal
can be preferred within the time limit from the date of receipt of the order copy and in that case
the appeal should be accompanied by the certified copy of the order. The time consumed for
making ready the certified copy of the order shall be excluded while calculating the time limit.
(1) (a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of Appellate
Authorities for the purpose of this Act, in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be
specified in the order.
(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the
date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. In
computing the fifteen days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order
appealed against shall be excluded.

34 | P a g e
(2) On such appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order stay of further
proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.
(3) The Appellate Authority shall call for the records of the case from the Controller and after
giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further
inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. The
Appellate Authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Controller, grant
an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.
(4) The decision of the Appellate Authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the
Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law,
except as provided in Section 2529.

REVISION :
Similarly, the persons who are affected by the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the
appeal has right to prefer revision before the High Court within the prescribed time limit. The
section which provides for revision itself prescribes in built remedy for condonation of delay for
a period of 30 days in cases where the parties are unable to prefer revision within the time
stipulated.
(1) The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate
Authority, call for and examine the record of the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the
regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order
passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order
should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders
accordingly.
(2) Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) shall
be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the
application relates is communicated to the applicant.
Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month
for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for
not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section.30

29
Section 23 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
30
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

35 | P a g e
PROCEEDINGS BY OR AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
The statute provides for the course of action to be taken either by the landlord or tenant in case of
death of the parties to the proceedings whether for fixation of fair rent or eviction or restoration
of amenities or execution or appeal or revision. In case of death of a tenant, all the legal heirs
cannot become a tenant in respect of the demised premises. The Act stipulates the time limit for
impleading the legal representatives and is applicable only to the applications or appeals or
revisions under the Rent Control Act and not to the execution proceedings.
(1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against any
person, may, in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives.
(2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken,
under this Act or by against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the
event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives31.
Every application for making the legal representative or representatives of a deceased person,
party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within one month from the date of the
death of the person concerned or the date of having knowledge of the death of the person
concerned32.
The provisions of the Rent Control Act have been exempted in case of certain buildings,
buildings owned by the Government Central or State, Government Companies, Religious Public
and Charitable Trusts.
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to
(i) any building for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is
completed and notified to the local authority concerned or
(ii) any residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent
paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees33.

31
Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.
32
Rule 25,Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules 1974
33
Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960.

36 | P a g e