Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2679 (MAD)

S. Shankar v. Ajimee Beevi

2025-06-19

P.B.BALAJI

body2025
ORDER : The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. The petitioner filed an Application in MP.No.01 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.184 of 2022 under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act , 2017 (in short 'TNRRRLT Act, 2017') seeking to cross examine the landlady/petitioner in the RLTOP. 2. I have heard Mr.B.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.I.Kowser Sultana, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Mr.B.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would state that the tenant is facing eviction proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act, 2017. According to the petitioner/tenant, there was no proper service of notice in the RLTOP on the petitioner and it is the specific case of the petitioner that, the petitioner’s father was inducted as tenant only in respect of the land and he has put up pillars by erecting iron pipes and asbestos roofs at his cost, with the express permission of the landlord, on the vacant land which was leased to the petitioner’s father. It is further contended that the petitioner had spent huge monies for renovation and maintenance of the said superstructure and the petitioner is even ready to buy the land. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner has a valuable right under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act , 1921 to purchase the land from the respondent/ landlady. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to take out an Application seeking permission to cross examine the landlady regarding the petitioner’s right over the superstructure. He would submit that the Rent Court has erroneously dismissed the Application without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, to prove his right over the superstructure. He would therefore pray for the order passed by the Rent Court being set aside. 5. Per contra, Mrs.I.Kowser Sultana, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady would submit that the Rent Court has rightly dismissed the Application. She would further state that the tenant is only protracting the proceedings and trying to stay in the property as long as possible, denying the lawful rights of the respondent/landlady. She would further state that there is no error or illegality in the findings rendered by the Rent Court, warranting interference in the revision. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. She would further state that there is no error or illegality in the findings rendered by the Rent Court, warranting interference in the revision. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order impugned in the present revision petition. 7. The Rent Court has dismissed the Application filed under Section 36(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 seeking permission to cross examine the landlady/petitioner in the RLTOP. The Rent Court has followed the ratio laid down by this Court in J. Thennarasu vs Anita Nalliah in CRP.No.2532 of 2021 . The Rent Court has also found that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant existed and therefore, there is no necessity for permitting cross examination of the respondent/ landlady. 8. Infact in the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady Mrs.I.Kowser Sultana would also bring to my notice that the revision petitioner/tenant suffered an order of fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and the said Order fixing fair rent under Section 4 of the said Act has also become final, with the dismissal of CRP.No.1121 of 2022 on 06.07.2022. The copy of the said order of the revision is also made available to me. 9. The mere fact that petition under Section 4 , for fixation of fair rent has been entertained and fair rent has been finally fixed clearly implies the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, now it is not open to the petitioner to plead to the contrary and claim that he is the owner of the superstructure and that he must be given an opportunity to cross examine the respondent/landlady with regard to his right over the superstructure. 10. The revision petition has been preferred under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The Section that has been invoked is a ground which is available to a landlady to seek eviction when there is a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement in terms of the new Act i.e., the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. 10. The revision petition has been preferred under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. The Section that has been invoked is a ground which is available to a landlady to seek eviction when there is a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement in terms of the new Act i.e., the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. For the purposes of determining this question of existence of a valid tenancy agreement as on the relevant date of coming into force of the Act, I do not find any necessity to permit the petitioner/tenant to cross examine the respondent/landlady. If at all, it is the case of the petitioner/tenant that there is a valid tenancy agreement on the relevant date of coming into force of the new Act, it is always open to the petitioner to produce such agreement before the Court and get the eviction petition dismissed. The requirement of cross examination of the respondent/landlady, citing a ground the petitioner/tenant has a right of ownership over the superstructure, is totally extraneous, especially at this point of time, when the petitioner/tenant has already suffered an order of fixation of fair rent which came to be confirmed by this Court in a Revision Petition. 11. This Court has already decided the issue of permissibility/requirement of cross examination under Section 36(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 in J.Thennarasu’ case (referred herein supra) . The petitioner’s case does not fall within the category of cases where absence of opportunity of cross examination would create prejudice to the tenant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings rendered by the Rent Court in denying the request of the petitioner/tenant for cross examination of the respondent/ landlady.