Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Sheik Naina – Appellant
Versus
Noorani Nabusa Begum – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and arguments regarding cross-examination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court's rationale regarding the denial of cross-examination in summary proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 4) |
Order
The revision petitioner, a tenant, challenges the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Rent Controller in MP.No.1 of 2026, refusing permission to cross-examine PW1.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is in no way connected with the petition premises and has been falsely implicated, and therefore seeks to test the claim through cross-examination. However, it is not in dispute that the rental agreement exists between the landlord/petitioner and the 1st respondent, and the alleged relationship between them stands admitted.
3. The burden to establish locus standi and the existence of any independent right lies upon the 2nd respondent. On a perusal of the records, no prima facie material has been produced to substantiate such claim. Mere assertions, in the absence of supporting evidence, are insufficient. In such circumstances, seeking cross-examination of PW1 at this stage to determine locus standi is unwarran
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
