Madras High Court
Taarika Ganesh vs M/S.Jainsons on 28 July, 2023
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Civil Revision Petition No.1972 of 2023
and
CMP No. 12622 of 2023
---
1. Taarika Ganesh
2. Radhey Soundarya Gnanesh
3. Rahul Vellanki
4. Arjun Vellanki
[Petitioners 1 to 4 represented by their power
agent Renuka Gnanesh]
5. Vickram Vijayanagaram
[5th Petitioner represented by his power agent
V.Vishnupriya Vijayanagaram]
6. Vijayanagaram Aditya
[6th Petitioner represented by his power agent
V.Vishnupriya Vijayanagaram] .. Petitioners
Versus
M/s.Jainsons, represented by its Partners
1. T.Gyanchand Jain
2. Vimala Jain
Having registered office at No.119,
(Old No.61), Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600017. .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order of the XIII Small Causes Court (Rent Court) at
Chennai made in RLTOP No.836 of 2021 dated 21.03.2023, in rejecting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023
memo dated 28.2.2023 filed by the counsel for the petitioner seeking for
withdrawal of undertaking dated 03.02.2023 thereby consequently direct the
XIII Small Causes Court (Rent Court) at Chennai to permit the petitioners to
restore all the averments and grounds in full as originally raised in RLTOP
No.836 of 2021.
For Petitioners : Mr. T.Mohan, Senior Advocate
for Mr. S. Saisathyajith
For Respondents : Mr. V. Sivakumar for
M/s. P.B.Ramanujam Associates
ORDER
The revision petitioners claims themselves to be the landlords of the premises in question. The respondents are the tenants in the premises said to be owned by the landlords.
2. The revision petitioners/landlords have filed RLTOP No. 836 of 2021 before the Rent Controller to direct the respondents-tenants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in a tenable condition, within 7 days as per Section 21 (2) (a), (c) and (d) read with Section 4 (2) and 7 of the the Tamil Nadu Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (in short "the Act"); to direct the respondents to compensate the landlord to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by them and for the legal costs incurred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023
3. According to the landlords, the tenant failed to enter into a written agreement with them as mandated under Section 4 (2) of the Act and therefore, they are liable to be vacated. It is also contended that the tenants have failed to pay the admitted rent to the tune of Rs.1,10,32,590/- from February 2020 until 30.04.2021 and therefore, a notice of termination dated 18.02.2020 was issued and inspite of receipt of the same, they are refusing to budge. It is also contended that the tenant has parted with possession of a portion of the premises without the written consent of the landlords as per Section 7 of the Act and therefore, they are guilty of act of sub-letting. With these averments, the landlords have filed the Original Petition.
4. On notice, the tenant has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that they are not liable to pay the rent to the landlords at all inasmuch as the premises in question is owned by one Mrs. Renuka Ganesh and her sisters alone. Therefore, the question of entering into a lease agreement with the revision petitioners will not arise or the consequent demand made by the landlords/revision petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises is not maintainable. With reference to acts of sub-letting, it is stated that the present business in the name and style of "Go colours" is one of the franchise business run by the respondent itself and therefore, the question of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 sub-letting will not arise. The respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.
5. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the learned Rent Controller, by an order dated 03.02.2023 has recorded that the counsel for the landlords/revision petitioners herein has not pressed the relief sought for under Sections 21 (2) (b), (d) and (c) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Controller decided to proceed with the case for determination of the issues relating to Section 21 (2) (a) of the Act alone. Subsequently, when the Original Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Rent Controller passed the order dated 21.03.2023, which reads as follows:-
"Memo filed and rejected. The petitioner and respondent does not hold valid tenancy agreement. No rental agreement produced. Hence, as per the decision of Honourable ..........................."
6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 21.03.2023 of the learned Rent Controller, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlords.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the counsel for the revision petitioners made an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 endorsement before the Rent Controller on 03.02.2023 stating that they are not pressing the relief sought for under Sections 21 (2) (b), (c) and (d) of the Act. Such an undertaking was made under the impression that the case would be taken up as a summary enquiry. However, the Court below, after recording such undertaking is intending to proceed further with trial in the Original Petition by converting the summary proceedings. Even the request made by the counsel for the revision petitioners to withdraw the undertaking has not been considered and the Rent Controller is proceeding to conduct trial in the Original Petition. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners therefore would contend that the order dated 21.03.2023, to take up the Original Petition for trial, is contrary to the object with which the new Act was enacted and therefore, he prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
8. On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is not disputed that the revision petitioners have given up the relief sought for under Sections 21 (2) (b), (c) and (d) of the Act. Now, the only issue left for determination of the Rent Controller is as to the ownership of the premises in question. Such a dispute cannot be decided by way of a summary proceeding. It is also recorded by the Rent Controller that the parties to the Original Petition did not enter into any rental agreement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 so far. On the other hand, a specific plea was taken on behalf of the respondents-tenants that one Mrs. Renuka Ganesh and her sisters are the owners of the property in question and therefore the question of failure to enter into any rental agreement with the revision petitioners will not arise. In such circumstances, the Rent Controller is right in proceeding to determine the real disputes in controversy by conducting a trial and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present Civil Revision Petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. It is not in dispute that the counsel appeared before the Rent Controller has made an endorsement to the effect that the Petitioners-landlords are giving up the relief sought for under Sections 21 (2)
(b), (c) and (d) of the Act. However, now it is sought to be conducted that such an endorsement was made under the impression that the Rent Controller will proceed further with a summary enquiry instead of conducting a trial.
10. The object with which the new Act has been enacted to ensure swift disposal of the disputes relating to tenancy by adopting a summary procedure. However, when it is warranted that the Rent Controller has to conduct a trial by permitting the parties to examine the witness or to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 cross-examine the witness it shall do so. The powers of the Rent Controller have been set out in Section 34 of the new Act. For ready reference, Section 34 of the Act is re-produced hereunder.
34. (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall have power to regulate their own procedure, and the Rent Court shall follow the following procedure, namely –
(a) the landlord or tenant may file an application before the Rent Court accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any;
(b) the Rent Court then shall issue notice to the opposite party, accompanied by copies of application, affidavits and documents;
(c) the opposite party shall file a reply accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any, after serving a copy of the same to the applicant;
(d) the applicant may file a rejoinder, if any, after serving the copy to the opposite party;
(e) the Rent Court shall then fix a date of hearing and may hold such summary inquiry as it deems necessary.
(2) In every case, before the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal the evidence of a witness shall be given by affidavit. However, the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal, where it appears to it that it is necessary in the interest of justice to call a witness for examination or cross-examination, such witness can be produced and may order attendance for examination or cross-examination of such a witness.
(3) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding service of summons shall be applicable mutatis mutandis for service of notice by the Rent Court or Rent Tribunal.
(4) Every application or appeal, shall be, as far as possible in the forms as may be prescribed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (5) The Rent Court shall not ordinarily allow more than 7/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 three adjournments at the request of a party throughout the proceedings and in case it decides to do so, it shall record the reasons for the same in writing and order the party requesting adjournment to pay the reasonable cost.
(6) (a) All applications under clauses (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h) of sub-section (2) of section 21 shall be decided within 90 days of filing of application to the Rent Court.
(b) Applications under clauses (d) and (g) of sub-section (2) of section 21 shall be decided within 30 days of filing of application to the Rent Court.
11. A reading of Section 34 of the new Act would makes it abundantly clear that the Rent Controller cannot confine the proceedings before it as summary in nature. The Rent Controller, on exercise of sound discretion, shall conduct a trial to determine the real disputes in controversy, wherever it is warranted. The Rent Controller has all the powers that are vested with a Civil Court. In other words, the Rent Controller has the trappings of the Civil Court. In the present case, the only dispute required to be adjudicated is whether the revision petitioners are the owners of the premises in question in the teeth of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter that the revision petitioners herein are not the owners of the premises in question. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents-tenants, such a dispute is nebulous in nature and it requires evidence to be let in and documents to be marked. Therefore, the Rent Controller is wholly justified in proceeding to conduct a trial in the case. It is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 always open to the petitioners as well as the respondents to examine their witnesses or to cross-examine the witness besides marking documents to prove their respective case. The Rent Controller shall fix a date for proceeding with the trial on or before 10.08.2023. The petitioners as well as respondents are directed to extend their co-operation for completion of the trial at the earliest.
12. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
28.07.2023 kv Index: Yes Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To
1. The XIII Small Causes Court (Rent Court), Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
kv C.R.P.No.1972 of 2023 28.07.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10