C.Dineshkumar Rawal Vs M.G.Gnanasekaran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

C.Dineshkumar Rawal Vs M.G.Gnanasekaran — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petitions should be allowed by setting aside the Rent Controller, Madurai Town's order dated 17-11-2025 dismissing I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 (applications to reopen and recall the tenants' evidence) in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The trial court rightly examined Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act 2017; in the absence of any material placed before it to justify reopening and recalling the tenants' evidence, its dismissal of I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 was on merits and calls for no interference in revision under Article 227.

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the trial court's reliance on this Court's order in CRP(MD)No.2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022: for an eviction relief sought under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act 2017, cross-examination is ordinarily not necessary unless (a) the tenant denies tenancy or (b) the tenant sets up a tenancy which the landlord denies, which cannot be proved through written documents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), N. Senthilkumar J.: Civil Revision Petitions CRP(MD).Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by tenants (C. Dineshkumar Rawal, Jasoda Devi Rashal and Bhagyashree Silks) against the Rent Controller, Madurai Town's order dated 17-11-2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024, DISMISSED. The landlords/respondents had filed RLTOP No.9 of 2024 before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town; the tenants' I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 to reopen and recall their side evidence (closed on 28.10.2025) were dismissed, the trial court finding the right of cross-exmination forfeited and no sufficient cause shown despite documents Exhibits A7 to A9. The trial court had applied this Court's order in CRP(MD)No.2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022: for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act 2017, cross-examination is ordinarily unnecessary unless the tenant denies tenancy or sets up a tenancy the landlord denies which cannot be proved through written documents. Holding there was no material to justify reopen/recall, the High Court found the dismissal to be on merits needing no interference; no costs; connected CMP(MD)Nos.19836 and 19837 of 2025 closed.

CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 15/12/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025 and CMP(MD)Nos.19836 and 19837 of 2025

C.Dineshkumar Rawal,

Jasoda Devi Rashal,

Bhagyashree Silks Through its Proprietor, Dineshkumar Rawal ... Petitioners / respondents in both CRPs

Vs

M.G.Gnanasekaran

M.G.Ramsekar

T.R.Hari Lakshmi

M.G.Dinesh

S.P.Pramila

M.J.Jayanthi

A.R.Manikandan (Formal Party) ... Respondents / Petitioners in both CRPs

COMMON PRAYER :-

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town dated 17-11-2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024 by allowing the Civil revision petition.

1/4

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

CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santhakumaresan, Advocate.

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town dated 17-11-2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024 by allowing the Civil revision petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioners are tenants and the respondents herein are the owners. The respondents herein have filed RLTOP No.9 of 2024 before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. In that application, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.2 and 3 of 2025, to reopen and recall their side evidence as the same was closed on 28.10.2025. The said applications were dismissed by the trial Court, by stating that when the petitioner has forfeited their right of cross examination though the documents were filed as Exhibit A7 to A9 where there was no sufficient cause was shown to reopen the case of the petitioner. The trial Court has

2/4

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

CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025

taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in CRP(MD)No.

2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022 that for a relief of eviction sought under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act 2017, cross examination is ordinarily not necessary unless the case falls within the category (a)if the tenant denies tenancy or (b)The tenant setting up a tenancy which the landlord denies, which cannot be proved through written documents.

As the trial court has rightly examined the said provision and in the absence of any material placed before the trial court with regard to reopen and recall, the trial court has dismissed the same on merits, which needs no interference.

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

15.12.2025

NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no

pnn

3/4

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

CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025

N.SENTHILKUMAR,J

To

The Rent Controller, Madurai Town.

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER IN CRP(MD). Nos.3766 and 3767 of 2025 and CMP(MD)Nos.19836 and 19837 of 2025

Date : 15/12/2025

4/4

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