C.R.P(PD)No.2807 of 2021

and CMP.No.20352 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

C.R.P(PD)No.

2807

of 2021

and

CMP.No.20352 of 2021

Devaraj Jain

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.Shafak Hameed Thaika

2.Sadhak Hameed Thaika

3.Shahid Hameed Thaika

..Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.09.2021 passed in

MP.Sr.No.25303 of 2021 in RLTOP.No.375 of 2019 on the file of the XVI-

Small Causs Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan

1/8

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2807 of 2021

and CMP.No.20352 of 2021

O R D E R

The tenant, against whom the proceedings were launched under

the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and

Tenants Act, 2017 is on revision. Challenge is to the order of the Rent

Court, rejecting an application filed by the tenant seeking permission to

cross-examine the witness, who appeared on the side of the landlords.

2.The original eviction petition was filed in RLTOP.No.375 of

2019 seeking eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation

of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tnants Act, contending that

the tenant has not entered into an agreement of lease as required under Sub-

section 2 of Section 4 of the said Act. The tenant would claim that he was

in possession of the property in question, as a tenant, even prior to the

coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and

Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Certain proceedings were

launched by the landlords under the predecessor enactment namely,

Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking eviction.

2/8

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2807 of 2021

and CMP.No.20352 of 2021

3.The landlords failed in their attempts to get an eviction order

under the said enactment. It is also stated that the landlords had filed an

appeal against dismissal of their eviction petition under the Tamilnadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act with a delay. Though the delay was

condoned, they have not prosecuted the proceedings further. Taking

advantage of the enactment of the new act, in the interregnum, the landlords

have come up with this application for eviction. Pending these proceedings,

the Trial Court namely, the Rent Court examined both the landlord and the

tenant under Section 37 of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and

Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Thereafter, the landlords

filed a proof affidavit and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. It is at this stage, the

tenant filed an instant application seeking permission to cross-examine the

witness of the landlords. The said application was rejected by the Rent

Court on the ground that it is wholly unnecessary and there is no necessity

for examination or cross-examination of the witness.

4.I have heard Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner / tenant.

3/8

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2807 of 2021

and CMP.No.20352 of 2021

5.Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan would vehemently contend that the Rent

Court is duty bound to give an opportunity to the tenant to cross-examine

the witness of the landlords, once a proof affidavit is filed and documents

are marked. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that cross-

examination on the proceedings under the predecessor enactment namely,

Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is also necessary. I am

unable to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel.

6.The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of

Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is a self-contained Code. Section 4 of the

said Act requires that in case of tenancy created prior to the commencement

of said Act, where no agreement in writting was entered into between