Tenants sought to reopen evidence and cross-examine the landlord in eviction petitions under the 2017 Act on grounds of willful default and absence of agreement. The High Court held that Section 36(2) confers discretion, not a right to cross-examine, followed S.Muruganandam, found no merits, dismissed the revisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2024
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996,
2002 & 2004 of 2023 & C.M.P.Nos.15159, 15166, 15212, 15219, 15517 and 12583 of 2023
In C.R.P(PD).No.2423 of 2023
The Proprietor, Bhavani Fancy Store, Shop No.G-7, Old No.71, New No.40, Previous Old No.2/25, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
M/s.Mayur Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Director Sanjay K.Jain,
Son of P.Kesarimal Jain, having registered office at Ground Floor, Door No.9, Shop No.G13, Mayur Plaza, Veerappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001.
... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair order and decretal order in MP.No.2 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.252 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022 passed by the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dismissing the said petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to reopen the evidence of PW1 for cross examination.
1 of 9
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.P.Chandrasekar
COMMON ORDER
This batch of civil revision petitions is at the instance of the tenants. The landlords had filed eviction petitions under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The grounds under which eviction petitions have been filed are willful default and also that no agreement had been entered into between the tenants and the landlords.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
default. Apart from that, primarily the counter do not speak about the factum of agreement existing in terms of section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 between the civil revision petitioner and the purchaser of the said property.
box and depose. Thereafter, the applications which are the subject matter of these revisions came to be filed by each of the tenants seeking to reopen the evidence of the landlords and recall the landlord for the purpose of examination. After receipt of the counter from the landlords, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the petition against which the present revisions.
tenants have not agreed to the title of the landlords and therefore, on that ground they are entitled to cross examine PW1. He would state that the Rent
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
Controller had exceeded his jurisdiction and had come to the conclusion that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant, which is a matter that should have been gone into at the time of final disposal.
4 of 9
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
5 of 9
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
purpose of arriving at a conclusion while deciding the said petitions. I am sure that if the tenants argue on the jural relationship, the learned Rent Controller would take into consideration and pass orders at the time of final disposal.
6 of 9
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
Justice R.Subramanian in S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph, 2022 SCC Online Mad 375 that the tenant does not have a right to cross examine in a proceeding for eviction under Section 21(2)(a). Respectfully following the said judgment, I do not find any merits in these revisions. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.07.2024
nl
Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To
The X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023 & C.M.P.Nos.15159, 15166, 15212, 15219, 15517 and 12583 of 2023
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.2423, 2425, 2436, 2438, 2429, 2428, 2427, 2458, 2504, 1996, 2002 & 2004 of 2023
09.07.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether tenants are entitled to recall and cross-examine the landlord (PW1) in an eviction proceeding under Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act.
Whether the Rent Controller exceeded jurisdiction by prima facie concluding the landlord-tenant relationship while deciding the reopening application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Muruganandam vs. J.JosephFollowed¶12
S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph, 2022 SCC Online Mad 375 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Proprietor, Bhavani Fancy Store
M/s.Mayur Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Director Sanjay K.Jain
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
