The discretion of the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary to call witnesses for examination or cross-examination in summary proceedings under the new Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in C.R.P. No. 662 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed in M.P. SR.No.4002 of 2023 in RLTOP No.784 of 2021 dated 15.02.2023 on the file of learned XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

In C.R.P. No. 664 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed in M.P. SR.No.4003 of 2023 in RLTOP No.784 of 2021 dated 15.02.2023 on the file of learned XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

Common Order:

1. Challenging the impugned docket orders dated 15.02.2023 passed in M.P.SR.Nos.4002 and 4003 of 2023 in RLTOP No. 784 of 2021, on the file of learned XI Small Causes Court, Chennai respectively, which were filed by the Revision Petitioner/tenant herein for the purpose to call the witness for examination and to take evidence. He filed those applications before the Rent Controller and the same were rejected by the Rent Controller stating that the procedure of summary enquiry adopted by the court in consonance with the provisions of the Act and that there is no necessity to call the witness for examination. Challenging the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner argues that under the name of summary enquiry, the trial court is ignoring the natural principles of justice by not allowing the tenant to take oral evidence by way of cross-examining the respondent and also to give evidence on his side by way of chief and cross-examination. If the Rent Controller proceeds with the proceedings without giving opportunity to examine the witness, it is a clear violation of natural justice and also acting against the preposition laid down by the Apex Court in various cases i.e. in a case reported (2016) 15 SCC 785, clearly held that,

“According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected” and further the natural justice was defined as, the natural justice includes evidence of both the parties including the cross examination of the parties, but this was over looked in this case, which is against law.

3. The learned counsel would further submit that the Apex Court in a case reported in (2016) 12 SCC 204, clearly held that, “compliance with the principles of natural justice is not mere formality, more so, when statutory provisions specifically provide that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of principles of natural justice – U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service.”

4. The learned counsel for respondent/landlord would submit that originally, she entered into agreement with the tenant in the year of 1989 and only 11 months period was granted to run a chat shop, but from the date of agreement, he is a defaulter in payment of rent. He would submit that the arrears of rent would come around Rs.19 lakhs and the petitioner/landlord''s husband died in the year of 2013. All these years, the tenant refused to vacate the premises and she wanted to put up an additional room for her family. Moreover, the lease agreement expires on 01.06.1990 and he is in unauthorised occupation of the premises all these years and he failed to enter into a new agreement for tenancy also. Further, he is committing default in payment of rent. Hence, she filed a petition in RLTOP No.784 of 2021 under Section 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, as amended by Act XXXIX of 2018 and the same was posted for arguments by the learned Rent Controller as the summary proceedings is contemplated under the new Act.

5. By way of reply, the learne