Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 20.04.2022 Pronounced on : 05.08.2022 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.R.P.(PD) No.2532 of 2021 and C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 and CMP. Nos.18968 of 2021, 18044 of 2021 & 18046 of 2021 C.R.P.(PD) No.2532 of 2021 :
J.Thennarasu ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent Vs Anita Nalliah .... Respondent / Respondent / Petitioner C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 :
1. M.Logu ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent in CRP (NPD) No.2372 of 2021
2. O.M.Paul ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent in CRP (NPD) No.2373 of 2021 Vs.
1.Sadak Hameed Thaika 2.Shafak Hameed Thaika [Respondents 2 & 3 are represented by their Power Attorney Agent Mr.Shafak Hameed Thaike.
3.Sahid Hameed Thaika .... Respondents 1 to 3 in Prayer in CRP(PD) No.2532 of 2021 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 23.10.2021 in MP.SR.No.35278 of 2021 in RLTOP.No.477 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Small Causes Judge cum Rent Controller, Chennai, and permit the petitioner to recall and cross-examine P.W.1 in the interest of justice.
Prayer in CRP(PD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decretal order passed by XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in (i) MP.SR.No.25480 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.374 of 2019 and (ii) MP.SR.No.26950 of 2021 in R.L.T.O.P.No.376 of 2019, dated 07.09.2021.
In C.R.P.(PD) No.2532 of 2021 :
For Petitioner : Mr.K.F.Manavalan For Respondent : Mr.T.Jayaramaraj Mr.Sharath Chandran, Amicus Curiae C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021:
For Petitioners : Mr.Na.Malaisaravanan (in both CRPs)
For Respondents : Mr.P.B.Balaji (in both CRPs)
COMMON ORDER
The short point involved in this batch of revisions relates to the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination of witnesses under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter would be referred to as the Act). Before dealing with this issue, the brief facts involved in each of the cases are as under :
| CRP.No. | Revision filed by | Facts of the case | Decision and Line of reasoning of Rent Court |
| 2532/2021 | Tenant | RLTOP.No.477/2020 was filed by the respondent / landlady under Sec.21(2)(f) of the Act, that the revision petitioner/tenant has converted the petition premises from residential use to commercial use and under Sec.21(2)(g) for landlord's own occupation. The tenant in his counter denies both and alleges that landlord's requirement for own use is not bonafide. The tenant/revision petitioner has filed MP.SR.No.35278/2021 | Petition rejected as not maintainable in the SR. stage itself. Line of reasoning : The prime object of enacting the new Act and replacing the old Act is that to provide fast adjudication of disputes. The Act itself has given a procedure under Sec.36(1)(e) to hold summary inquiry as it deems fit and necessary. The main issue that has to be decided is whether the parties have complied the mandatory requirement u/s.4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act. Therefore, allowing the parties to cross-examine opposite parties will defeat the very object of the new Act. The Rent Court opined that Sec. 36(2) can be invoked only in exceptional cases. The |
| CRP.No. | Revision filed by | Facts of the case | Decision and Line of reasoning of Rent Court |
| to re-open the respondent/ petitioner side evidence in RLTOP.No.477 of 2020, and that came to be dimissed, and this was challenged in the present revision. | petitioner/respondent had not filed any documents to support his contentions regarding sale agreement. The other contention of the petitioner vis-a-vis owning of additional properties by the respondent is not relevant to the present case as there is no precondition required that the landlord should not own more than one property within the jurisdictional limits for invoking the ground u/s. 21(2) (g) for own use and occupation. | ||
| 2372/2021 | Tenant | RLTOP.No.374/2019 was filed by the respondents/landlords on the ground that the tenant has failed to enter into tenancy agreement in terms of Sec.21(2)(a) of the New Act. The tenant disputes it. The tenant/revision petitioner has filed MP.SR.No.25480/2021, praying to let in oral evidence in chief and cross and permitting him to file oral evidence. | Petition rejected as not maintainable Line of reasoning : Same reasons were cited by the Ld. Judge as mentioned above in RLTOP NO. 477/2020. As per Sec. 2 (n) of the new Act, the dismissal of the earlier proceedings in the old Act is no bar for filing the present petition under the new Act. Hence, allowing this petition to adduce evidence or permitting cross examination will only consume more time and it will lead unnecessary delay and prolong the proceedings. Then the very object of enacting this new Act will not be achieved. |
| 2373/2021 | Tenant | RLTOP.No.376/2019, by the same landlord who | Petition rejected as not maintainable |
| CRP.No. | Revision filed by | Facts of the case | Decision and Line of reasoning of Rent Court |
| preferred the earlier case, but against another tenant. The ground for eviction too is same and is under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the Act. And, here too the tenant disputes it. The tenant/revision petitio |
