IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CMP.No.23869 of 2025 Mrs.Kusum, ...Petitioner Vs Mr.Ashok Lunawat, …..Respondent(s)

..

Prayer: The civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in MP.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.360 of 2023.

For Petitioner(s): M/s. Aashishjain Lunia For Respondent(s): M/s.P.Sunil

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dated 18.03.2025 and 09.02.2024.

2. The petitioner herein filed main OP seeking re-possession on the ground of failure to enter into rental agreement (Section 21(2)(a) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017, hereinafter referred to as TNRRRLT Act).

3. The respondent herein filed a counter denying jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Court, after taking into consideration the pleas raised by the respondent in the counter to main OP, passed order on 09-02-2024, which reads as follows:-

“Both side counsel present. On perusal, it is seen that title of petitioner is disputed, which warrants trial. Call on

02.03.2024”.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner examined herself and marked certain documents. At this stage, the respondent herein filed a memo by relying on order dated 09-02-2024 and sought for full-fledged trial including the right of cross- examination. The said memo was opposed by the petitioner by filing counter memo. Nevertheless, the Rent Court passed an order for full-fledged trial as per the order dated 09.02.2024 by order dated 18.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed MP.No. 2 of 2025 seeking to review the order dated 18.03.2025 and 09.02.2024. The said review application was dismissed by the Rent Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition for re-

possession has been filed on the ground of failure to enter into a tenancy arrangement as per the provisions of new Act. Therefore, the Rent Court is expected to follow the summary proceedings contemplated under the Act. It committed an error in passing orders for full-fledged trial including the right of cross-examination.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent by relying on the judgment of this court in the case of J.Thennarasu Vs Anita Nalliah reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5939 submitted that in view of the controversy with regard to the existence of the jural relationship, the right of cross-examination is available to the respondent and the Rent Court rightly passed an order for full-fledged trial and dismissed the review application

7. TNRRRLT Act describes summary proceedings. However, in appropriate cases, the court can permit the opposite party to cross-examine and order for full-fledged trial. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in Thennarasu case cited supra. The relevant portion reads 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 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, o