1. Introduction
The right to residence is a fundamental right ensured by the Indian Constitution. It forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further reinforced by the freedom of movement and residence guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e), which provides that every citizen has the right “to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.” This constitutional guarantee ensures not only freedom of physical movement but also stability and security in one’s living arrangements. Although the Constitution does not expressly define the term ‘residence,’ it is understood as an umbrella concept that flows from personal liberty and the freedom to choose one’s place of living. In the context of tenancy and rental housing, the right to residence acquires special significance. In Tamil Nadu, tenancy relations are now governed by the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, 2017), which aims to modernise rental governance and balance the interests of both parties. The Rent Act, despite its aims for transparency and fair eviction, exhibits significant constitutional vulnerabilities. Its provisions, even with mandated written agreements and eviction grounds, inadequately safeguard the fundamental right to residence and fail to establish genuine parity between parties. Through the lens of constitutional principles, the Rent Act, 2017, however, falls short in its particular impact on basic living conditions and its operation with arbitrary discrimination. A key issue lies in the mandatory written tenancy agreement, which presumes equal bargaining power between landlords and tenants. However, in reality, the negotiation process with tenants, predominantly low-income or socially vulnerable groups, is often unable to negotiate terms on an equal footing. The legal protections are contracts rather than protective statutory safeguards; the right to residence becomes precarious and easily overridden by unequal negotiations. The procedures for eviction under the Act, though outwardly structured, lack the robust safeguards necessary to prevent arbitrary displacement. Furthermore, silence on crucial aspects such as rent ceilings and safeguards for vulnerable tenants creates a regulatory vacuum that disproportionately benefits economically stronger landlords. The imbalance not only compromises the goal of equitable housing but also contradicts the constitutional mandate to protect weaker tenants when their fundamental rights, such as the right to residence, are at stake. This article raises the issue that the Rent Act itself mandates the existence of a registered written agreement between the landlord and the tenant as a prerequisite for instituting legal proceedings before the court. However, the Act becomes self-contradictory, as Section 21(2)(a) permits the landlord to initiate proceedings for repossession of the premises even in the absence of such a registered agreement, which is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. The Legitimacy of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017
2.1 People often say that “the whole world is one roof and we are all tenants.” This idea is shared everywhere, but in reality, every individual desires to own a separate home. Even though the property right was removed from the list of fundamental rights, the real purpose behind that change has not been achieved. Everyone has still not received the basic needs and equal opportunities promised in the Preamble under Socialism. This persistent disparity underscores the ongoing struggle for social justice, where fundamental entitlements such as adequate housing remain elusive for a significant portion of the population, despite international recognition of such rights. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, asserts social security as an inalienable human right; however, implementing such declarations globally faces significant challenges due to a lack of political will and administrative capacity. In the context, the state allowed the rent system.
2.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India holds in Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti (1980) 1 SCC 290 that this type of legislation was termed as a social reform to protect the tenants from capricious and frivolous eviction and thus conferring the status of a statutory tenant who could not be evicted, except under the conditions specified therein and by following the procedures prescribed by the Rent Control Act.
2.3 Irani vs. State of Madras, (1962) 1 MLJ (SC) 92, held that the fundamental purpose of rent control legislation is twofold, (i) to prevent unreasonable evictions and (ii) to regulate rent—and that these two objects are inseparably connected. An eviction becomes unreasonable where the landlord seeks to exploit the shortage of accommodation by letting the premises at an exorbitant rent or by securing an extortionate premium. The Court further noted that such unlawful premiums are often realised clandestinely; therefore, control of eviction is indispensable to the effective control of rent. Conversely, where there is no possibility of the landlord being able to extract illegal rent or a premium, an eviction may not be unreasonable. Indeed, there may arise cases where the tenant attempts to misuse the statutory protection for unfair advantage, and in such circumstances, the government is within its competence to exempt the premises from the operation of the act.
2.4 Balaji v. Principal Secretary to Government, W.P. No. 3985 of 2020 (Madras HC Apr. 23, 2024), held that the constitutional validity of the Rent Act, 2017, has been extensively contested before the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by landlords and tenants. The petitioners argue that several provisions of the Act are repugnant to central laws, particularly the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and succession laws. They contend that the Act imposes an arbitrary contractual regime, eliminates statutory tenancy protections, and infringes vested rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The objections include mandatory written tenancy agreements, registration requirements, expanded grounds for eviction, and the alleged absence of presidential assent under Article 254 when the act occupies the Concurrent List. The State defends the legislation as a necessary reform aligning with the Model Tenancy Act and argues that its legislative competence is traceable to Entry 18 of the State List, thereby excluding the question of repugnancy. It maintains that the Act seeks to modernise tenancy relations, streamline dispute resolution, and restore contractual balance without violating fundamental rights. The Court identifies core constitutional questions relating to legislative competence, repugnancy, arbitrariness, and consistency with central enactments, which form the basis for adjudicating the validity of the Act.
2.4 In Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, (1980) 1 SCC 290, the Supreme Court acknowledged rent regulations as a social reform tool designed to protect tenants from exploitation and arbitrary eviction. In contrast, the 2017 Act diverges from this paradigm by placing a greater focus on market-based efficiency rather than the socio-economic vulnerabilities of tenants.
3. Can an Act truly protect tenants when Section 4 requires strict registration of tenancy agreements, yet Section 21(2)(a) enables eviction without one, and does this inconsistency violate the equality clause under Article 14?
3.1 The Tamil Nadu Rend Act, 2017. Chapter II of the Act deals with Tenancy under Section 4, after the Act comes into force, no premises can be rented except through a written tenancy agreement. For tenancies that existed before the Act, a written contract must be executed within 575 days from the commencement of the Act. This agreement must be registered with the Rent Authority, which will either register it within 30 days and provide a registration number or reject it if it does not comply with the Act or Rules. The Rent Authority will also publish details of the property, the tenancy period, and the parties involved on its website. Section 4A states that if a required agreement is not registered, it does not affect property rights, confer any powers, or be accepted as evidence in transactions concerning the property. According to Section 5, the tenancy period is as agreed in the tenancy agreement. Before the Tenancy ends, the tenant must request renewal or extension. If the Tenancy is not renewed, the tenant does not vacate, and the landlord does not demand possession, the Tenancy is deemed renewed on a month-to-month basis for a maximum of six months, under the same terms and conditions.
3.2 In Muruganandam vs. J. Joseph (CRP NPD Nos. 3056, 3061, 3062, 3063, 3067 & 3094 of 2021), the Madras High Court observed that while the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 mandates tenancy through a written and registered agreement under Section 4, issues arose regarding tenancies that existed before the commencement of the Act and the effect of Section 4A on unregistered contracts. In these cases, the rent agreements were entered into before the Act came into effect and had either expired before or after its commencement. No new written agreement was executed or registered within the 575 days as required under Section 4(2). The Court clarified that it is not always necessary for a tenancy to have a registered agreement, and eviction or possession applications cannot be rejected solely on that ground. Even f or pre-existing or unregistered tenancies, the Rent Court must examine the merits of the case rather than dismiss applications on technicalities. Accordingly, the three revision petitions were allowed, with a direction to the Rent Court to number and decide the applications, as the question of a written and registered tenancy instrument did not arise.
3.3 The judgment conclusively held that upon the expiry of the 575-day transitional period, the temporary protection afforded to pre-existing tenancies stood terminated, and the execution and registration of a tenancy agreement became mandatory in all circumstances. Accordingly, with effect from 10.06.2022, every tenancy falling within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 must be supported by a written agreement signed by both parties and duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, in strict conformity with Sections 4 and 4-A. Consequently, unregistered, informal, unsigned or oral tenancy arrangements cannot be relied upon to establish tenancy rights or be admitted as evidence before the Rent Authority, Rent Court or Rent Tribunal. The Court further emphasized that the legislative object is to eradicate undocumented tenancy practices and institute a transparent, accountable and traceable tenancy regime; hence, any tenancy that fails to satisfy the mandatory statutory registration requirement after the transitional period has lapsed is unenforceable in the eyes of law.
3.4 However, this statutory mandate stands in direct tension with Chapter V, Section 21 of the Act, which deals with the repossession of premises by the landlord. Under Section 21(2)(a), repossession may be sought on the ground that “the landlord and tenant have failed to agree as required under sub-section (2) of Section 4.” This clause implicitly acknowledges the continued existence of tenancies even where there is no written or registered agreement, thereby preserving the legal status of a tenant despite non-compliance with Sections 4 and 4-A. When these provisions are read together, an internal inconsistency becomes apparent within the legislative framework, Sections 4 and 4-A impose a mandatory requirement of execution and registration of a tenancy agreement after the expiry of the transitional period, whereas Section 21(2)(a) recognises the validity of an unregistered tenancy for the purpose of adjudicating landlord’s claims. Thus, the Act simultaneously demands strict procedural compliance through compulsory registration and yet accepts the substantive continuation of unregistered tenancies, creating a conflict between regulatory formality and the preservation of tenancy rights.
3.5 This inconsistency becomes even more striking in light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 2820 of 2022, dated 12.09.2022 (Justice S. Sounthar), wherein para 14 interprets the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act of 2017. The Court held “………that if the parties fail to execute a written agreement as mandated under Section 4(2), either party is entitled to file an application for termination of tenancy and seek repossession under Section 21(2)(a)”. This interpretation reveals a more profound statutory contradiction, because Chapter V of the Act is titled “Repossession of the Premises by the Landlord,” indicating that only the landlord can seek repossession, yet Section 21(2)(a)-as read in the judgment—confers the right on “either party,” including the tenant. Thus, while the legislative framework makes execution and registration of tenancy agreements compulsory under Sections 4 and 4-A, Section 21(2)(a) simultaneously recognizes the continued existence of unregistered tenancies and even grants a procedural right to seek termination and repossession to both sides. As a result, the Act creates uncertainty: it mandates strict registration for the existence of a tenancy, yet it preserves unregistered tenancies for the purpose of seeking legal remedies, and it titles the chapter in favor of landlords while wording the provision in favour of both landlords and tenants. This internal inconsistency blurs the distinction between procedural non-compliance and substantive tenancy rights, undermining legislative clarity and predictability.
3.6 The contradiction within the Tamil Nadu Rent Act, 2017, becomes constitutionally significant when examined through the lens of the tenant’s right to residence, which forms an integral component of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. While Sections 4 and 4-A introduce a rigid regime of mandatory execution and registration of tenancy agreements after the expiry of the 575-day transitional period, Section 21(2)(a) simultaneously recognises the survival of unregistered tenancies and allows repossession based on their non-execution. The judicial interpretation in C.R.P. No. 2820 of 2022 further reinforces that “either party”—including the tenant—may seek repossession upon non-execution of a tenancy agreement, even though Chapter V is titled in favour of the landlord. This mosaic of conflicting provisions creates an ambiguous legal environment for tenants, where compliance with registration requires validating tenancy rights. Yet, non-compliance can simultaneously become the basis for eviction proceedings. Such legislative inconsistency exposes tenants to uncertain and unequal treatment, enabling eviction without the procedural protections otherwise guaranteed under Sections 4 and 4-A. In effect, the Act’s structural contradiction undermines the constitutional guarantee of security of residence, as tenants may lose possession without the safeguard of a registered tenancy agreement that the Act itself demands. This situation gives rise to an arbitrary classification under Article 14, where similarly placed tenants—those without a registered agreement—may either retain protection or be exposed to eviction depending on the interpretative application of Section 21(2)(a). Therefore, the statute, in its current form, fails to provide a stable and predictable framework for tenancy and falls short of upholding the constitutional promise of dignified housing and protection from arbitrary eviction. It calls for urgent legislative and constitutional amendments to ensure that internal statutory inconsistencies do not undermine the right to residence.
4. Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu Rent Act, 2017, though enacted to modernize tenancy governance, suffers from fundamental structural inconsistencies that undermine its constitutional legitimacy. The mandatory requirement of a written and registered tenancy agreement under Sections 4 and 4-A is contradicted by Section 21(2)(a), which simultaneously recognises and allows action on unregistered tenancies, creating a direct conflict between procedural compliance and substantive tenancy rights. Judicial interpretations have further highlighted this inconsistency by permitting “either party” to seek termination and repossession despite the Act’s clear mandate for registration. This internal incoherence not only erodes legislative clarity but also jeopardises the constitutional right to residence under Article 21, exposing tenants—particularly vulnerable ones—to arbitrary eviction. The unequal legal consequences arising from the same statutory non-compliance constitute an unreasonable classification under Article 14, failing the test of fairness and non-arbitrariness. For an act intended to promote transparency, accountability, and balanced protection, these contradictions diminish its effectiveness and compromise the socio-economic safeguards historically embedded in rent control jurisprudence. To fully align with constitutional principles and ensure housing justice, the Act requires urgent legislative correction, harmonisation of its provisions, and a stronger reaffirmation of tenant protections within the broader framework of the right to dignified residence.
