Tenants are entitled to cross-examine landlords in eviction proceedings under specific conditions linked to sub-letting and property condition despite summary procedures.

COMMON O R D E R

Heard Mr.N.Mariyappan for the petitioner and Mr.V.N.Arjun, for Mr.N.Vallinayagam for the respondent.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai in I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.3 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.21 of 2024, dated 02.08.2025.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

4. The landlord approached the Rent Court under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, seeking eviction. He sought eviction on multiple grounds. The first ground being that the landlord and tenant had failed to enter into an agreement, as required, under Section 4(2) of TNRRRLT Act. The second ground being that the premises is required for rebuilding, as addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The last ground being that the tenant sublet the property to a third party.

5. The tenant had filed a detailed counter denying the said allegations.

6. Considering the pleas of the respective parties, the learned Rent Controller felt that recording of evidence, in a summary manner, was essential. Consequently, the landlord entered the witness box and deposed as PW1 on 05.06.2025. On his side, the landlord marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The matter was listed for cross examination on

10.06.2025.

7. On that day, the Counsel for tenant requested the Court that the matter be adjourned to another day, so as to enable him to cross examine PW1. It is averred that the Court had called upon the Counsel for tenant to bring the counsel for the landlord, before granting, adjournment. Post lunch session, the Counsel for the tenant was held up before this Court. Hence, he was not in a position to cross examine P.W.1. When he rushed to the rent Court at about 3.45 PM., he came to know that the evidence of P.W.1 had been closed and the matter was listed for evidence on the side of the tenant. 8. Immediately on 23.06.2025, he filed two petitions in I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking orders of the Court to re-open the side of landlord and to recall P.W.1. The learned trial Judge called upon the landlord to file a counter. The landlord filed a counter stating that even when the proof affidavit was served on the Counsel for the tenant, it was informed that landlord is proceeding to Netherlands and hence, it would not be possible for him to be present before the Court after the first week of June. It was further averred that the tenant had been keeping away from the Court, only in order to drag on the matter and to delay the proceedings.

9. The learned Rent Court cum Principal District Munsif, Madurai considered the affidavit petition and the judgment of this Court in Thennarasu vs Anita Nalliah (CRP(PD).No.2532 of 2021, dated 05.08.2022). He held that the cross examination of P.W.1 cannot be held to be an inherent right, in cases of non-existence of a registered agreement and consequently dismissed the applications.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions.

10. Mr.N.Mariappan relying upon the very same judgment, referred to by the learned trial Judge, invites my attention to the tabular column setforth by the learned Judge in Paragraph No.8 and urges that the learned Trial Judge had referred only to that corresponding portion of the judgment which relates to Section 21(2) (a) and not with respect to scope of cross examination under 21(2)(e). Hence, he pleads that the order is vitiated. He further states that he could not be present on that day to cross examine P.W.1., on account of pressing work he had before the High Cou