The discretion of the Rent Court to allow cross-examination, the importance of fair procedures and compliance with the rules of natural justice in Rent Control Proceedings, and the need to avoid prolonging litigation for unjust gains.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted, challenging the order passed in M.P.No.3 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.348 of 2021.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the tenant and respondent in RLTOP.No.348 of 2021. The respondent/Landlord filed an application for eviction and for delivery of possession. The revision petitioner has taken a portion of the property belongs to the respondent/Landlord for running his clinic. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that he has not paid the rent properly and at one point of time, he stopped paying the rent. As and when the demand is made, the revision petitioner assured payment, but not actually paid. It is further contended by the respondent that the building is 100 years old and in a dilapidated condition. Thus, he has taken a decision to demolish the 100 years old building and reconstruct the same. It was the case of the respondent that the building is in bad condition and unfit for dwelling.

3. Pending RLTOP.No.348 of 2021, the revision petitioner filed M.P.No.3 of 2021 to recall the P.W.1 for Cross-examination. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he filed counter in the RLTOP.No.348 of 2021 on 12.08.2021 and the case was adjourned for filing re-joinder on three occasions. The revision petitioner states that there was an earlier litigation between the petitioner and the respondent, which went up to RCA and recently he was able to trace the papers in RCA, which he had not filed the same along with the counter. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition to recall the P.W.1 for Cross-examination is to be permitted. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues with reference to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The Trial Court considered the procedures for Rent Court and Rent Tribunal under Section 36 of the Act. By elaborately considering the provisions of the Act and based on the judgment of this Court on the issue, made a finding that the revision petitioner/tenant filed the Miscellaneous Petition for Cross-examination on the only reason that he has to prove as to who is the reason of failure to enter into an agreement. The said issue is inadequate for the purpose of recalling P.W.1 and therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the provisions of the new Act, shall not curtail the rights of the tenants from cross-examining the witnesses, which is otherwise contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. The new Act is a substitution and the procedures, which is substantial under the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed for the purpose of examination and cross-examination of witnesses and to recall the witnesses. When the Code of Civil Procedure permits such procedures for the tenants, it cannot be dispensed with merely based on the new Act, which has came into force in the year 2017. Thus, the view of the Trial Court in this regard is perverse and opportunity to be provided to the tenant is falling under the rules of natural justice, which is to be complied with all circumstances with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, rejection of Miscellaneous Petition is in violation of the procedures as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the evidence was closed on 08.12.2021 and miscellaneous petition was filed on 07.03.2022 and therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered the miscellaneous petition for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the revision petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 with reference to the reason of failure to enter into a lease agreement.

6. (a) In support of the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.M. Mansoor Refai Vs. Shafak Hameed Thaika & 2 others made in C.R.P.No.2811 of 2021 dated 20.0