Rental agerement in tamilnadu

An academic query.

It is optional registeration u/s 17 of the Registeration Act.

However, it is compulsory registeration for a rent agreement beyond 1 year, if it is required to be read in evidence.

Eviction of tenant is dealt by various factors wherein landlord may or may not approach to the Rent Controller, which differ from state to state.

Contact your tutor or engage a local lawyer.

Rental disputes arose inrespect of building situates within the limit of Municipalities and Corporation in Tamilnadu state, the Rent Controller alone having jurisdiction and the state rent control act will apply irrespective of the duration of rental period and registration of rental agreement.  Civil suit can be filed for the rental issues in respect of building situated out side of the said Jurisdiction.

As you rightly said, if the rental period is for less than 12 months, there is no need to get registration.

DEAR AUTHOR

                           I AGREE WITH THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE ADVOCATE MS. SALEEMA KABIR IN THIS MATTER . NOBODY GOES IN FOR A CIVIL SUIT BUT GIVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO A PERSON TO FILE A CASE BEFORE THE MUNSIF COURT / RENT CONTROLLER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BUILDING . BUT IT IS NOT CONDUCTED AS PER THE COURT PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IS NOT ATTRACTED . EVEN EVIDENCE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED IN MANY CASES . BUT THE LANDLORD HAD TO FOLLOW STRICTLY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS AND LEASE CONTROL ACT 1960 AS AMENDED TILL DATE . BUT THE LOWER COURT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES . THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANT HAD SUCCEEDED . SO THE TENANT CAN GO ON A CIVIL REVISION PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT . BUT THE TENANT SHOULD HAVE FILED THE COUNTER STATEMENT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROLLER AND CONTESTED THE CASE TILL THE END EVEN IF HE WAS MADE EXPARTE BY THE RENT CONTROLLER . EVEN AFTER HE WAS MADE EXPARTE , HE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER . THE LANDLORD SHOULD TAKE AN ADVANCE OF ONLY ONE MONTH RENT . HE SHOULD NOT TAKE MORE . HE SHOULD GIVE RECEIPT FOR THE RENT COLLECTED EVERY MONTH . BUT NOBODY DOES THAT . THERE ARE LOT OF LOOPHOLES TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE HIGH COURT BY MEANS OF A CIVIL REVISION PETITION . BUT THE DEFENDANT / TENANT'S ADVOCATE MUST HANDLE THE CASE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT HE MUST HAVE PROOF FOR HAVING FILED EACH OF THE PETITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE . EVEN AFTER FILING THE COUNTER STATEMENT SOME OF THE RENT CONTROLLERS SET THE TENANT EXPARTE , WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE . HE CAN ONLY CLOSE THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE LANDLORD FIRST , THEN THE CHIEF EXAMINATION OF THE TENANT , THEN THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE TENANT AND THEN ONLY THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE TENANT . EACH STAGE THE TENANT CAN FILE A PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND REOPEN THE CASE .BUT THERE ARE SOME RENT CONTROLLERS WHO CLOSE EVERYTHING " IN ONE SHORT " AND RESERVE THE CASE FOR ORDERS .  - JOSEPH WILFRED - 04/05/2014 AT 20:05 HRS  

Mr. Joseph Wilfred, please see what is the query raised by the author, your lengthy reply is deviating the subject after a certain extent.  It is simple that to avoid paying stamp duty, the rental agreement is made for 11 months because no stamp duty is required to be paid for an agreement made for a period of one year.  This agreement is valid in law.  The author's second question is irrelevant to his first question.

DEAR MR . KALAISELVAN 

                                              I GAVE ONLY THE DETAILS OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT IN TAMIL NADU . BUT AS YOU SAID HIS SECOND QUESTION DOES NOT RELATE IN ANYWAY TO HIS FIRST QUESTION . AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, IN TAMIL NADU , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BYPASS THE RENT CONTROLLER WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNISIF . I AM FIGHTING A CASE FROM THE YEAR 2008 IN WHICH AFTER WE SUBMITTED THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN JULY 2009 , THE CASE DID NOT MOVE TILL JANUARY 2011 BY WHICH TIME THE BANK TO WHICH FIVE OF THE PROPERTIES ARE MORTGAGED IN 2006 FOR A LOAN OF 4 CRORES IN WHICH THE SUIT PROPERTY IS ALSO INCLUDED HAD ISSUED THE DEMAND NOTICE ON 3RD JANUARY 2011 TO REPAY THE LOAN WITHIN A PERIOD OD 60 DAYS . AFTER THAT ON 25TH JANUARY 2011 THEY DEPOSED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROLLER AND MARKED THE DOCUMENTS . BY THE TIME OUR TURN AS DEFENDANT CAME , THE BANK HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON 20TH APRIL 2011. WE FILED THE COPY OF THE BANK ORDER ALONG WITH THE PETITION . EVEN THEN EVICTION ORDER WAS PASSED . BEFORE WE COULD GET THE COPY OF THE ORDER AND FILE A CIVIL REVISION PETITION , THE EXECUTION PETITION WAS FILED . WE CONTESTED THAT THE ORDER IS NOT EXECUTABLE . BY THIS TIME THE BANK BROUGHT ALL THE PROPERTIES FOR AUCTION ON 13TH MARCH 2012 . WE FILED C.P.C. 47 PETITION WITH THE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE , THAT THE ORDER IS NOT EXECUTABLE . EVEN THIS WAS OVER LOOKED AND THE EXECUTION PETITION WAS ALLOWED ON 28TH JUNE 2012 . NOW WE HAVE APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT - JOSEPH WILFRED - 10/05/2014 AT 15:05 HRS