Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
K. Thamaraiselvan – Appellant
Versus
Sivakami Sachitanandam – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 4989 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 28049, 28051 of 2024
Decided On : 05-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Narmada Sampath, S. Kumarshankar
For the Respondents: P. Valliappan, T. Dheeraj

A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord once inducted, and evidence on title cannot be introduced in Rent Court proceedings under the new Act.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Section 21(2)(a) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Tenant's denial of landlord's title - Tenant estopped from denying title of landlord as per statutory provisions - Application to summon witness dismissed as it sought to introduce evidence on title, which is impermissible under the new Act. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Evidence - Examination of witnesses - New Act allows Rent Court discretion in evidence procedure, not permitting insistence on examination or cross-examination. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed for eviction under the new Act, and the tenant contested the ownership of the landlord, seeking to summon the Executive Engineer to prove ownership by the Housing Board.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title and that the application to summon a witness was an attempt to prolong proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the tenant could deny the landlord's title and the permissibility of summoning witnesses regarding ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under the new Act, the tenant cannot deny the landlord's title once inducted, and evidence on title cannot be introduced in Rent Court proceedings.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the impugned order, wherein, the appellate authority dismissed the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC to issue summons to the Executive Engineer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board to produce document and give evidence as witness.

2. Brief background of the case is as follows:

(a) The respondent/landlord has filed an application for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The eviction order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller. Challenging the said order, appeal has been filed before the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner has taken out the subject application, inter alia, contending that the landlord is not the original owner of the property, the property stands in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, disputed the title of the landlord and in order to prove the particular factum of ownership, he filed an application to summon the Executive Engineer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. That application has been dismissed by the learned appellate authority. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner contended that though the revision petitioner was originally inducted as a tenant by the respondent, later, he came to know that the respondent is not the actual owner of the property and ownership is with the Housing Board. Therefore, in order to prove the said facts, examination of the Executive Engineer is absolutely necessary. Further contention is that Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2019 provides for examination of witness also. Therefore, on this ground, the Trial Court has not properly addressed the issue. It is also the contention that tenant is entitled to deny the title of the landlord.

4. Mr. P. Valliappan, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has become a tenant in the suit property for a monthly rent of Rs.30000/- on 25.02.2010. During April 2013, rent was enhanced to Rs.33000/-. From 2017 onwards, the landlord requested the revision petitioner to vacate the premises to accommodate her daughter, however, the same was refused. The respondent has filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S. No. 2166 of 2018, wherein, it is clearly pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent is the landlord of the suit property. Therefore, once, he was inducted as a tenant entered into an agreement, it is too late for the revision petitioner to contend that the landlord is not the owner of the property. Hence, seeks for dismissal of this petition.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the tenant is clearly estopped from denying the title of the landlord as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 122 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The above provisions makes it clear that tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Therefore, the application is nothing but only to drag on the proceedings. It is the categorical stand of the respondent/landlord that he has purchased the property from the original allottee, it has been clearly pleaded in the proceedings. Purchase is also made by way of registered document. Be that as it may, once the tenant has admitted in categorical terms that he was inducted as a tenant by the landlord and he was paying the rent, now, he cannot take a contrary stand denying the title in view of the settled position of law.

7. It is relevant to note that this Court in the case of S. Krushnan vs. R. Kalaivani made in CRP (PD) No. 3070 of 2021 dated 06.01.2022 has held that as per the new act, i.e. Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 letting in evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document