CRP.No.504 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP.No.504 of 2023 and

CMP.No.4124 of 2023

A.Jalaluddin

... Petitioner

Vs.

Bilal Abdullah

... Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India to set aside the order and decree dated 23.11.2022 passed by the

learned XII Small Causes Judge, Chennai in MP.No.2 of 2022 in

RLTOP.No.792 of 2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.T.Rajasurya

For Respondent : Mr.L.Rajasekar

for Mr.M.Kumar

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order and

decree dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned XII Small Causes Judge,

Chennai in MP.No.2 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.792 of 2021.

Page 1 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.504 of 2023

2.

The revision petitioner is the tenant in RLTOP.No.792 of 2021

pending before XII Small Causes Judge, Chennai. The respondent herein is the

landlord. He filed application for eviction on the ground that tenancy agreement

has not been registered. The tenant appeared through his counsel and also filed

objection stating that he is ready to register the tenancy agreement provided it

was on the acceptable terms. When the matter was pending before the Rent

Controller, the tenant filed MP.No.2 of 2022 praying to cross examine the

landlord and the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding

that cross examination should not be permitted to establish the reason for non

entering into a written tenancy agreement. During the examination both parties

were admitted that they had not entered into a written tenancy agreement in

compliance of mandatory requirement under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT

Act. Further, in the present case either parties were not examined as witness in

the present case. The parties to the proceedings cannot seek as a matter of right

even for examination themselves as witness. Challenging the said finding, the

tenant filed the present petition.

3.

Notice served to the caveator and respondent counsel also

appeared.

Page 2 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.504 of 2023

4.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the

tenant has every right to cross examine the landlord in order to prove his

bonafide and also the reason for non entering into lease agreement as claimed

by the landlord, because he fixed onerous condition with regard to enhanced

rent as well as the advance. Hence, he seeks permission of the court to cross

examine the landlord. But the learned Rent Controller without appreciating the

legal requirement made by the petitioner erroneously dismissed the application.

Hence, he prayed to set aside the said findings. To support his arguments, he

relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in CRP.PD.No.2532 of 2021

and CRP.NPD.Nos.2372 & 2373 of 2021 dated 20.04.2022, wherein it i held

as follows:

8. Statements are broadly made as they should be, since

the statute has opted for expressions or phrases with immense

elasticity, conferring the Rent Court with enormous discretion.

Here the expression 'in the interest of justice' as a factor

provided to guide the need for allowing cross examination needs

to be balanced along with few other phrases. And, this

balancing act may have to be worked within the parameters

Page 3 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.504 of 2023

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi's

case. The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court reads:

32. The basic concept is fair play in action administrative,

judicial or quasi-judicial. The concept of fair play in action must

depend upon the particular lis, if there be any, between the parties.

If the credibility of a person who has testified or give some

information is in doubt, or if the version or the statement of the

person who has testi