J. Thennarasu vs Anita Nalliah - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2482

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
J. Thennarasu & Others - Appellant
Versus
Anita Nalliah & Others - Respondent
C.R.P.(PD) No. 2532 of 2021 & C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 & CMP. Nos.18968 of 2021, 18044 of 2021 & 18046 of 2021
Decided On : 05-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.F. Manavalan, Na. Malaisaravanan Advocates. For the Respondent:T. Jayaramaraj, P.B. Balaji, Advocates, Sharath Chandran, Amicus Curiae.

Headnote:
Rent Controller's Power to Allow Cross-Examination under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Sec. 36(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections Referenced: The judgment discusses the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination of witnesses under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. It provides a detailed analysis of various provisions of the Act, such as Sec. 14, Sec. 21(2), Sec. 24, Sec. 25, Sec. 26, and Sec. 27, and outlines the circumstances where cross-examination may be necessary.
Fact of the Case:

The judgment addresses the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination of witnesses under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. It discusses the nature of the inquiry, the legislative thrust on adherence to the principles of natural justice, and the statutory scheme for the disposal of cases within prescribed time-lines.
Finding of the Court:

The Court emphasizes that the Rent Court has discretion to allow cross-examination only 'in the interest of justice' and provides illustrative circumstances to aid the Rent Court in managing its discretionary power. It also highlights the need for a balance between procedural fairness and the requirement for expeditious disposal of rent cases.
Issues: The issues revolve around the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination under the Act, the nature of the inquiry, and the balancing of procedural fairness with the requirement for expeditious disposal of rent cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes that the Rent Court has discretion to allow cross-examination only 'in the interest of justice' and provides illustrative circumstances to aid the Rent Court in managing its discretionary power. It emphasizes the need for a balance between procedural fairness and the requirement for expeditious disposal of rent cases.
Final Decision: The Court dismisses the revisions and emphasizes that the Rent Court shall take any application seeking its leave for cross-examination on to its file and dispose them with a speaking order. It also underscores that the Rent Court has discretion to allow cross-examination only 'in the interest of justice' and provides illustrative circumstances to aid the Rent Court in managing its discretionary power.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: CRP(PD) No.2532 of 2021 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 23.10.2021 in MP.SR.No.35278 of 2021 in RLTOP.No.477 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Small Causes Judge cum Rent Controller, Chennai, and permit the petitioner to recall and cross-examine P.W.1 in the interest of justice.

CRP(PD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decretal order passed by XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in (i) MP.SR.No.25480 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.374 of 2019 and (ii) MP.SR.No.26950 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.376 of 2019, dated 07.09.2021.)

Common Order:

1. The short point involved in this batch of revisions relates to the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination of witnesses under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter would be referred to as the Act). Before dealing with this issue, the brief facts involved in each of the cases are as under:

Provisions of law & Head of Dispute	Content of possible dispute	How far can be proved without cross examination	If cross examination will be required
Sec.14 Deposit of Rent	14(1) If landlord refuse to receive rent.	Can be proved by documentary evidence regarding the compliance of prerequisites for invoking Sec.14(1)	If a genuine dispute is raised regarding the mode and manner of compliance.
	14(1) If landlord refuse to receive rent.	If the dispute pertains to rate of Rent, that can be proved by the Rent Agreement registered under Sec.4	May not be necessary.
	14(2) If a Tenant has a bonafide doubt about the person to whom rent has to be paid	It may relate both to the identity of the landlord and documentary evidence properly authenticated would be sufficient.	If a bonafide dispute arises as to the authenticity of the documents produced by the Landlord, cross examination may be necessary. But the Tribunal must satisfy before hand that the objection to the authenticity of the documents is bonafide and that the tenant has made out a prima facie case for suspecting the authenticity of such documentary evidence so produced by the landlord.
		If it relates to right of the person who is alleged to be the landlord, then the Rent Agreement registered in terms of Sec.4 will take care.	Where a third party claim arises, which lead to a genuine doubt about the right of the landlord, and if the landlord disputes it, then to that extent tenant may be permitted to cross examine the landlord. And, if the tenant produce any materials to project his case of a third party claim to rent, then to that extent landlord may be cross examined. Here again, the Tribunal must satisfy itself before hand that the materials produced before it prima facie is capable of tilting the balance.
		If the tenant takes up a defence in terms of Sec.15(4) and claims deduction for maintenance, then the procedural compliance for invoking it can be proved by the documentary evidence.	If there is any dispute raised by the landlord as to the actual expenditure incurred by the tenant, and if any of the documentary evidence provided to prove the actual expenditure prima facie is found suspicious, then to that limited extent, cross examination may be necessary.
Sec. 21(2)(a)	Eviction sought on ground of failure to enter into a tenacy agreement. Here, a dispute can arise, (a) if the tenant denies tenancy; or (b) The tenant setting up a tenancy which the landlord denies.	Ordinarily not necessary unless the case falls in category (a) or (b) which cannot be proved through written document.	Cross examination may be necessary on