Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 allows landlords to seek eviction regardless of their fault in not entering a tenancy agreement, and cross-examination rights are discretionary.

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned XV Small Causes Judge-cum-Rent Controller at Chennai in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.497 of 2022, dated 02.02.2023. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The civil revision petitioner is a tenant of the premises being owned by the respondents/landlords.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlords and tenant.

3. The landlords initiated R.LT.O.P.No.497 of 2022 seeking for eviction. The petition was filed invoking the provisions of Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (for brevity 'Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017'). Their simple case is that a petition was filed for fixation of fair rent in R.C.O.P.No.1812 of 2008 and the said petition was ordered fixing the fair rent at Rs.4,220/- per month. An appeal preferred therefrom in R.C.A.No.559 of 2010 came to be dismissed on 26.10.2017. Despite the fixation of the fair rent having attained finality, the landlords pleaded that the tenant had not paid the same. Therefore, they decided that they did not want the tenant in their premises any more. Treating his conduct as unscrupulous, they invoked the provisions of the new legislation under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017.

4. The tenant entered appearance through a Counsel and filed a detailed counter. The tenant admitted the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant, but, pleaded that it is the landlords who refused to enter into an agreement and law should not normally come to the aid of one who seems to take advantage of his own wrong. Hence, the tenant wanted the learned Rent Controller to dismiss the petition on the ground that Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017 cannot be invoked by landlords who, in the petition, itself had stated that they are not willing to enter into an agreement.

5. The matter was taken up for trial and the first of the landlords, one Sarath Naseera filed her proof affidavit. At that stage, the tenant filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2022 seeking for the permission of the Court to reopen the landlords' side evidence and permit the tenant to cross-examine her.

6. The landlords filed a counter to the said application stating that the cross-examination of a landlord is essential only if there are certain disputed facts involved in the matter. According to them, as they have invoked Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017, the question of cross- examination does not arise when the requirements, as laid down in C.R.P.(NPD).No.2372 of 2021 etc., batch, dated 05.08.2022, are not satisfied. The learned Rent Controller, by the impugned order, accepted the contention of the landlords and dismissed the petition seeking for cross- examination of P.W.1. Against which, the present Revision is filed.

7. This Court had ordered notice and interim stay on 16.06.2023. Thereafter, the stay was extended till 17.08.2023. Since there was no interim order restraining the Court from proceeding further, the learned Rent Controller proceeded and passed an order in the main Rent Control Petition itself allowing the same on 07.11.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant also preferred an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.21 of 2024 before the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The learned Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction on 25.07.2024.

8. Heard Mr.Bijesh Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sivakumar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that when the matter is pending before the High Court and an interim stay had been granted, though not extended, the learned Rent Controller ought not to have proceeded and passed an order on merits. He would state that the learned Rent Controller ought to have waited till the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition and depending on the d