Madras High Court
S.Krushnan vs R.Kalaivani on 6 January, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21652 of 2021
S.Krushnan .. Petitioner
Vs.
R.Kalaivani .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 24.11.2021 made
in M.P.No.1 of 2021 in RLT.OP.No.139 of 2021 on the file of XIV Judge,
Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
******
------------
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021
ORDER
The tenant is on Revision. Challenge is to the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 24.11.2017 made in MP.No.1 of 2021, an application filed by the tenant seeking to let in evidence on the title to the property in question.
2. The tenant would contend that though he had entered into a lease agreement with the landlord, he subsequently found that the landlord is not the owner of the premises and hence, he filed the application to lead evidence to establish that the landlord viz., Mrs.Kalaivani is not the owner of the premises. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintain the eviction petition. This was opposed by the landlord contending that the question of title cannot be gone into in a proceedings under the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
3. The learned Rent Controller on an examination of the scope of the proceedings under the enactment, as well as the rival pleadings held that the Rent Court cannot go into the question of title, therefore letting in evidence
------------
Page No.2/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021 on the question of title is wholly unnecessary. On the aforesaid findings, the Rent Court dismissed the application.
4. Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that once there is a dispute regarding the title to the property, the Rent Controller must have allowed the petitioner to lead evidence.
5. I am unable to concur with the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The new Act viz., Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, herein after referred to as the new Act for the sake brevity, is a self contained code. The term 'landlord' has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act as follows:-
“Landlord” means a person, who for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, on his own account, if the premises were let to a tenant, and shall include his successor-in-interest:
------------Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021 Provided that where a person is receiving rent for any premises is entitled to so receive, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person who cannot enter into a contract (such as minor, person with unsound mind, etc.), whether as a trustee, guardian or receiver, then, the said trustee, guardian or receiver shall also be a landlord for the purposes of this Act.
6. This is nothing but a re-production of the term “landlord” in the predecessor enactment viz., Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. To be a landlord, it is not necessary that the person should own the premises or should be the title holder for the premises.
7. Admittedly, the tenant in the case on hand, had entered into an agreement with the petitioner in RLTOP.No.139 of 2021. There was renewal also for a period of 11 months in 2019. Subsequently, there was no renewal and the landlord has chosen to sue for eviction under the provisions of the new enactment.
------------
Page No.4/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021
8. Section 36 of the new Act enables the Rent Court to device its own procedure and the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Rent Court constituted under the new Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section 36 of the new Act provides that the evidence shall be by way of affidavits and absolute discretion is conferred on the Rent Court to call the witness for examination or cross-examination. Therefore, a party to the proceedings under the new Act cannot insist upon either examination or cross-examination of the evidence.
9. In the case on hand, as the Rent Court has rightly pointed out that the dispute regarding title cannot be gone into, therefore, letting in evidence on the question of title cannot be permitted. Unlike the predecessor enactment viz., Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the new Act does not contain a provision for a decision on the dispute regarding title in the proceedings under the new Act before the Rent Court. Therefore, the Rent Court was justified in dismissing the application seeking permission to let in evidence.
------------
Page No.5/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021
10. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Rent Court in order to enable interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Revision fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.01.2022 dsa Index : No Speaking order
------------
Page No.6/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021 To The XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
------------
Page No.7/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa C.R.P.(PD).No.3070 of 2021 06.01.2022
------------
Page No.8/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis