Revenue Divisional Officer Not Empowered To Order Recovery Of Possession Under TN Tenancy Law: High Court
story
The Madras High Court 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.Justice SM Subramaniam observed that as per Section 21(2) of the Act, a "rent court" could make an order for the recovery of possession of...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Madras High Court 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.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that as per Section 21(2) of the Act, a "rent court" could make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises. The court thus observed,
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.
In the present case, the petitioner was seeking review of an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing him to pay the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days. Challenging the jurisdiction of the RDO to pass such an order, the petitioner contended that as per the Act, only the rent court had such powers and thus, the RDO has usurped the powers of the Tribunal.
The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the RDO is also an authority under the Act and she had not directly ordered for recovery of possession but only ordered arrears of rent. Thus, the respondent submitted that there was no irregularity in the order.
The court agreed with the submissions of the petitioner and noted that as per the act, the authority was the Rent Court and not the RDO. Thus, the order passed by the RDO in the present case was not as per law.
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.
Thus, the court quashed the orders of the RDO and disposed of the petitions.
Case Title: Tmt.R.Nalini v Tmt.R.Nirmala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 504
Case No: CRP No.2845 of 2022