RDO has no powers to decide on rent arrear dispute matters: HC

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has made it clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to decide over the rent arrear matters of the building and other premises and the dispute should be settled before the proper Rent Court.

Justice SM Subramaniam passed the order while allowing a civil revision petition filed by a Salem-based resident R Nalini. The revision petitioner sought a direction to set aside the fair order/ notice passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Suramangalam, Salem on July 7.

The RDO passed an order under 21 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 directing the petitioner to pay the full rent arrears for the commercial premises in Salem town within a period of 30 days to one landlord R Nirmala/respondent and noted that if the petitioner fails to adhere to the order, the eviction process will be initiated by the police.

According to advocate S Ramesh Kumar for the senior counsel A Thiyagarajan representing the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 21 (2) (b) of the Act.

“Under Section 21 (2) of the Act, the Rent Court alone is competent to pass an order and the Revenue Divisional Officer usurped the powers of the Tribunal,” the petitioner added.

However, the respondent’s advocate H Ilyas Ahmed submitted that the Rent Authority is also an authority under the provisions of the said Act. “The RDO has not ordered for recovery of possession directly, ” he added.

Recording the submissions, the judge held that 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 RDO 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. Therefore, the respondent, if at all aggrieved, ought to have approached the Rent Court by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act,” the judge held and set aside the notice of the RDO.