Tenant's cross-examination on irrelevant tripartite agreement denied under 2017 TN Rent Act due to unclean hands and inconsistent claims.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 passed in M.P No.2 of

2026 in RLTOP No.2 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri, the tenant has preferred this revision.

2. The tenant has filed an application before the trial court to cross-

examine the applicant in RLTOP No.2 of 2025 and the same was allowed by the learned trial judge by granting permission to the tenant to cross examine the landlord. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the new Act viz, Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the tenant is not entitled to seek permission for cross examining the landlord, unless the court permits. It is only the decision of the court that he come forward with new ground. The applicant raised allegations against the landlord for that he want to cross examine, more particularly with regard to the Tripartite agreement of the year 2018 and he want to cross examine to that effect. In fact the said Tripartite agreement between himself, tenant and bank from where he availed loan, is no way connected with the revision proceedings. Therefore, permission is granted by the Rent Controller to cross examine in respect of the Tripartite agreement. For that he relied on the decision in Thennarasu Vs Anita Nalliah in CRP (PD) No.2532 of 2021 dated

05.08.2022

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said Tripartite agreement of the year 2018 was not disclosed by the landlord. By suppressing the fact, he came forward with the revision proceedings. Therefore the tenant is having a valid defence to cross examine PW1 and to that effect the trial court also rightly granted the relief. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the revision as devoid of merits and also submits that the authority relied by the revision petitioner also not supported his contention.

5. Considering both submissions and the fact also reveals that as per the submission made by the revision petitioner / landlord, as on date there is a huge rent arrears. When it was enquired by this Court, the tenant / respondent herein submits that he is paying rent to one Saravanan and also disputing that the revision petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased Sivakumar, the original landlord. But on seeing the plaint in OS No.81 of 2022 pending before District Munsif, Ponneri, which was filed by the tenant / respondent herein for relief of injunction sought against the present revision petitioner / Sathish kumar wherein in Para No.6 he has adduced that after the death of his father Sivakumar, Sathiskumar is his legal heir. Therefore, he admits that the revision petitioner / Sathish Kumar is the legal heir of the deceased Sivakumar. Now totally in contra he is disputing the legal heirship of the revision petitioner which is not acceptable one. Furthermore, the rent receipts adduced on the side of the respondent show that those receipts were obtained in a day. It was not issued then and there as alleged by the tenant by the said Saravanan. Therefore, the conduct of the tenant has also been taken note of and this Court finds that he has not approached this Court with clean hands. Therefore, in respect of Tripartite agreement, cross examination sought by the tenant is not acceptable one and to that effect, the order granted by the trial judge is liable to be set aside. The trial court is directed to dispose of the RLT.O.P.No.2 / 2025, pending on its file, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.