O R D E R

The tenant, against whom the proceedings were launched under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is on revision. Challenge is to the order of the Rent Court, rejecting an application filed by the tenant seeking permission to cross-examine the witness, who appeared on the side of the landlords.

2.The original eviction petition was filed in RLTOP.No.373 of

2019 seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tnants Act, contending that the tenant has not entered into an agreement of lease as required under Sub- section 2 of Section 4 of the said Act. The tenant would claim that he was in possession of the property in question, as a tenant, even prior to the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Certain proceedings were launched by the landlords under the predecessor enactment namely, Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking eviction.

3.The landlords failed in their attempts to get an eviction order under the said enactment. It is also stated that the landlords had filed an appeal against dismissal of their eviction petition under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act with a delay. Though the delay was condoned, they have not prosecuted the proceedings further. Taking advantage of the enactment of the new act, in the interregnum, the landlords have come up with this application for eviction. Pending these proceedings, the Trial Court namely, the Rent Court examined both the landlord and the tenant under Section 37 of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Thereafter, the landlords filed a proof affidavit and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. It is at this stage, the tenant filed an instant application seeking permission to cross-examine the witness of the landlords. The said application was rejected by the Rent Court on the ground that it is wholly unnecessary and there is no necessity for examination or cross-examination of the witness.

4.I have heard Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / tenant.

5.Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan would vehemently contend that the Rent Court is duty bound to give an opportunity to the tenant to cross-examine the witness of the landlords, once a proof affidavit is filed and documents are marked. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that cross- examination on the proceedings under the predecessor enactment namely, Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is also necessary. I am unable to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel.

6.The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is a self-contained Code. Section 4 of the said Act requires that in case of tenancy created prior to the commencement of said Act, where no agreement in writting was entered into between the parties, the parties are required to enter into an agreement within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of the new Act. Section 21 of the Act makes non-execution of an agreement itself a ground for eviction. Sub-

section 2(a) of Section 21 reads as follows:-

“(2) The Rent Court may, on an application made to it in the manner as may be prescribed, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that the landlord and tenant have failed to enter into an agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 4;”

The other sub-clauses of Sub-section 2 are not germane for our purposes.

7.From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that if the parties to an existing lease had not entered into an agreement within 575 days as requierd under Section 2 of Sub-section 4, that by itself will constitute a ground for eviction. Clause(a) of Sub-section 2 of Section 21 does not make a difference as to who was responsible