The court confirmed that the right to cross-examine in rent control proceedings is discretionary and that evictions focus primarily on landlord-tenant relationships, not property titles.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Tenant's evictions - The revision petition filed under Article 227 challenges the order dismissing the application to recall the witness. The petitioner claims continuous possession with no written agreement while the respondents assert entitlement as executors of the will of the deceased landlords probated by the court. The Right to cross-examine is at the discretion of the Rent Court. (Paras 5, 10, 15)

(B) Rent Control Proceedings - Nature and Purpose - The court highlights that rent control proceedings are summary in nature, focusing on landlord-tenant relationships, rather than title ownership, and that cross-examination is discretionary based on the specific facts presented. (Paras 8, 14)

Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner has been a tenant since 1968, claiming an oral agreement to purchase the property, which allegedly forms the basis of contest against eviction proceedings initiated by the executors of the landlord's will.

Findings of Court:
The Rent Court dismissed the plea to recall witnesses as it found no merit in the petitioner's claims and deemed that sufficient opportunities were previously given.

Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant could establish rights without written evidence and whether the court erred in denying the right to cross-examine.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that cross-examination is not an inherent right but a discretionary power of the Rent Controller, which was exercised appropriately in this case.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Challenging the order passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 16.07.2025 made in M.P.No.6 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.96/2024, in and by which the application filed by the revision petitioner / 4^th respondent in RLTOP to recall the witness on the side of one Mr.T.Rajendiran and Mr.D.Manohar / petitioners in RLTOP came to be dismissed. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the RLTOP.

2. The revision petitioner is the 4^th respondent in RLTOP. The petitioners in RLTOP, namely Mr.T.Rajendran and Mr.D.Manohar, have filed RLTOP.No.96 of 2024, seeking eviction of the respondents, namely Mrs.Chintya (1^st respondent), M/s.Prema Ajith (2^nd respondent), M/s.Sudarshan Chits (India) Limited (3^rd respondent), represented by its Authorized Signatory, M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company Ltd., (4^th respondent) / revision petitioner, represented by its Authorized Signatory. The 4^th respondent in RLTOP has filed two petitions to reopen and recall the petitioner's side witness for the purpose of cross examination and permit the revision petitioners to present his side evidence.

3. According to the revision petitioner, he is the tenant of the premises situated at 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floors of the building at Door No.25, Thiagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai 600 017, under one Mr.Srinivasa Mudaliyar and thereafter, his wife Mrs.Saradambal from the year 1968 onwards for conducting business. The ground floor was in occupation of another tenant for his business purpose. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as Advance Security Deposit to the said land owners. According to the revision petitioner, after formation and incorporation of subsidiary company, M/s.Sudarshan Chits India Limited (3^rd respondent in RLTOP), it was paying rent regularly till 1986 to the landlord Mrs.Saradambal. The said subsidiary company has gone into liquidation and was ordered to be wound up by the order of the Kerala High Court in C.P.Nos.9/81, 8/81 and 49 / 81 respectively and also appointing an Official Liquidator, by order dated 31.10.1981. The said late Mr.Srinivasa Mudaliar and Mrs.Saradambal had approached the 4^th respondent / revision petitioner during March 1973 and had orally agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the petitioners for a total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- on the ground that they were unable to maintain the same since they have no issues and there was no one to maintain them after their death. The said oral agreement could not be reduced into writing due to non-availability of owners due to her health condition. The said landlord was periodically receiving money towards meeting her financial needs from the 4^th respondent and they are also paying the same as and when demanded by the landlord on the understanding that the same would be adjusted towards the final sale consideration. The revision petitioner has filed Rs.2,00,000/- on various dates till the year 1991 and thereafter, whereabouts of the landlord was not known to the revision petitioner and no one demanded the revision petitioner from 1991 onwards.

4. The revision petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and running a chit business. The respondents/petitioners have issued a legal notice dated 01.09.2021 claiming that the landlady had died issue-less and the landlady had executed a Will dated 19.08.1998, nominating the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners as Executors of the Will and the said Will has been probated by this Court, vide order dated 21.01.2020 in T.O.S.No.25/94. The respondents 1 and 2 / petitioners are only the trustees of the properties and the subsequent trust, namely Saradambal Srinivasa Mudaliyar Charitable Trust, created by the said landlord are shown as party to the said proceedings and therefore, the said aspect has to be established before the Court below. Hence, the dispute between the revision petitioners and the respondent relates to the title of the petition property. The revision p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document