The court emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination while conditioning it on the payment of costs for delays caused by the tenant.

ORDER :

V.Lakshminarayanan, J.

These civil revision petitions arise against the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Controller at Poonamallee in M.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 in RLTOP.No.39 of 2021.

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

3. The civil revision petitioner is the tenant. The landlord, who is none else than her sister, had initiated RLTOP.No.39 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee. She invoked Section 21(2)(a) and Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act , 2017 (herein after referred to as 'TNRRRLT Act').

4. The case of the landlord is that she came across the property, by virtue of the settlement deed, that had been executed by her father, one Subramani Chetty on 16.04.2015. The said Subramani Chetty had also executed a letter of attornment in her favour. As per the letter of attornment, two shops which had been settled in favour of the landlord on 16.04.2015, were to be enjoyed by the landlord. She pleaded that the tenant did not enter into an agreement with her in terms of Section 4 of the TNRRRLT Act. Hence, the petition for eviction.

5. On being served with summons, the tenant filed a counter. She denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to her, the property is an ancestral property and she was not in occupation of the same as a tenant. She pleaded that the alleged tenancy agreement said to have executed between Subramani and herself, and the letter of attornment had been issued by Subramani in favour of the landlord were not meant to be acted upon.

6. On these pleadings, the parties went for trial. Pending the proceedings, the tenant filed an application to cross examine the landlord. The application was allowed. For reasons not disclosed, the tenant did not cross examine the landlord.

7. The learned Trial Judge waited for several months and finally closed the evidence. In order to reopen the evidence and to recall the landlord, the tenant filed two application in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 in RLTOP No.39 of 2021.

8. The landlord, not wanting to delay the proceedings any further, made an endorsement that the petition may be allowed on terms. The Court accordingly imposed a condition that on payment of Rs.500/- in each of the petitions, the petitions would be allowed. This order was passed on 01.11.2023. The matter was listed on 24.11.2023 for proceeding further.

9. On 24.11.2023, the landlord did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 14.12.2023. On 14.12.2023, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and hence, the matter was adjourned to 09.01.2024. On 09.01.2024, the landlord was not present and hence, the matter was adjourned to 24.01.2024. On 24.01.2024 too, the landlord was not present and hence, the matter was adjourned to 16.02.2024. On 16.02.2024, the landlord was present. After recording that the cost had been paid, the learned Trial Judge adjourned the matter to 07.03.2024. On 07.03.2024, the tenant reported to the court that she is not willing to cross examine the landlord. Therefore, the evidence was closed and the matter was adjourned for recording evidence on the respondent side.

10. Thereafter, the tenant filed M.P.Nos.4 and 5 of the 2024 to reopen the evidence and to recall the landlord. These applications were opposed by the landlord stating that the entire idea of the tenant is only to drag on the proceedings and ensure that the tenant continues to stick to the property. She also pointed out that the tenant had earlier filed a transfer petition s