Madras High Court
Sara Ghias vs Senthil Kumar on 10 October, 2025
CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
Sara Ghias
through Authorised Agent
Salma Fizza ... Petitioner in both CRPs.
vs.
Senthil Kumar ... Respondent in
CRP.No.3796 of 2025
Shanmugam ... Respondent in
CRP.No.3798 of 2025
Prayer in CRP.No.3796 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India as against the docket order dated 11.08.2025 made in
M.P.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.43 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate at Sholinganallur.
Prayer in CRP.No.3798 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India as against the docket order dated 11.08.2025 made in
M.P.No.1 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate at Sholinganallur.
For Petitioner : M/s.Gautam S.Raman (in both CRPs.)
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi (in both CRPs.)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.3796 of 2025 Unsuccessful landlord has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. One Sara Ghias, through her authorized agent Salma Fizza has filed an application in RLTOP.No.43 of 2024 under Sections 21(2)(a) & 21(2)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred as “TNRRRLT Act”] against one Senthilkumar/tenant on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sholinganallur seeking for the relief of direction to the respondent / tenant to vacate and handover the non-residential portion measuring about 250 Sq.Ft. in Door No.19/2 and 19/3, Plot No.18, Raja Nagar, Neelangarai, Chennai-600 041 to the landlord.
2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that Sara Ghias has no locus to maintain the present RLTOP, simply because of her own admission that title is not transferred in her favour after the demise of the original landlord Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin. It is true that the respondent was a tenant under Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin, the brother of the applicant, earlier from the year 2016 and the respondent was running a shop, measuring about 450 sq.ft. at 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 the above mentioned address and there are also other tenants in the same building, which is the petition mentioned property. A Rental Agreement was entered into by the respondent Mr.Senthilkumar and the said Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin on 01.06.2016. It is also stated that the shop is presently around 200 Sq.ft. after the highways had taken the part land. It is absolutely false to state that the respondent failed to enter into a fresh agreement and the same is put to strict proof of the same. The ownership after the demise of the respondent's owner is alleged to be vested with the applicant herein is totally false and there cannot be any transfer of ownership just by an understanding between the family members and the same should be supported by proper documentation as per law. It is further stated by Sara Ghias that after the demise of Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin / her brother, there are some issues between the applicant and her sisters. Later, respondent / tenant could see some third persons claiming on behalf of the applicant who came to the shop premises and demanded possession of the shop and when the same was reported to the applicant, she informed that they should wait for some time and they would tackle the issue among the relatives. The respondent/ tenant has also filed a suit as against the said Sara Ghias in 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 O.S.No.364 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur seeking for the relief of Permanent Injunction not to vacate him except under due process of law.
CRP.No.3798 of 2025
3. Unsuccessful landlord has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. One Sara Ghias, through her authorized agent Salma Fizza has filed an application in RLTOP.No.44 of 2024 under Sections 21(2)(a) & 21(2)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred as “TNRRRLT Act”] against one Shanmugam/tenant on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sholinganallur seeking the relief of direction to the respondent to vacate and handover the non-residential portion measuring about 100 Sq.Ft. in Shop No.1, bearing Door No.19/1 Plot No.18, Raja Nagar, Neelangarai, Chennai-600 115 to the landlord.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 that Sara Ghias has no locus to maintain the present RLTOP simply because of her own admission that title is not transferred in her favour after the demise of the original landlord Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin. It is true that the respondent was a tenant under Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin, the brother of the applicant, earlier from the year 2002 and the respondent was running a shop, measuring about 232 sq.ft. at the above mentioned address and there are also other tenants in the same building, which is the petition mentioned property. A Rental Agreement was entered into by the respondent Mr.Shanmugam and the said Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin. It is also stated that the shop is presently around 100 Sq.ft. after the highways had taken the part land. It is absolutely false to state that the respondent failed to enter into a fresh agreement and the same is put to strict proof of the same. The ownership after the demise of the respondent's owner is alleged to be vested with the applicant herein is totally false and there cannot be any transfer of ownership just by an understanding between the family members and the same should be supported by proper documentation as per law. It is further stated that Sara Ghias stated that after the demise of Mr.Ishrat Imtiazuddin / her brother, there are some issues between the applicant and her sisters. Later, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 respondent / tenant could see some third persons claiming on behalf of the applicant who came to the shop premises and demanded possession of the shop and when the same was reported to the applicant, she informed that they should wait for some time and they would tackle the issue among the relatives. The respondent/ tenant has also filed a suit as against the said Sara Ghias in O.S.No.363 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur seeking for the relief of Permanent Injunction not to vacate him except under due process of law.
5. In CRP.No.3796 of 2025, during the pendency of RLTOP proceedings, the tenant / Senthilkumar filed M.P.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP No.43 of 2024 under Section 36(2) of TNRRRLT Act, seeking to permit the respondent/tenant to cross examine the applicant / Sara Ghias in the above RLTOP.No.43 of 2024. Similarly in respect of CRP.No.3798 of 2025, the tenant/Shanmugam filed M.P.No.1 of 2025 seeking to permit the respondent/tenant to cross examine the applicant / Sara Ghias in RLTOP.No.44 of 2024. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 11.08.2025 has allowed the aforesaid petitions on the ground 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 that opportunity may be given to the tenants to cross examine the landlord. Aggrieved over the same, the landlord has preferred the Civil Revision Petitions.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / landlord has put forth the following contentions:
(i) The Court below failed to take into consideration that the Suit, which was filed by the respondent / tenant / Senthilkumar seeking for injunction in OS.No.364/2024 and the said filed by the tenant / Shanmugam in O.S.No.363 of 2024 has not denied the title of the landlord and had arrayed the revision petitioner as the landlord in the above suit, but just to prolong the proceedings in the application filed by the petitioner / landlord under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act to cross examine the landlord.
(ii) The Court below has failed to take note that once the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal ascertain that there is no written agreement between the tenant and the landlord with reference to Section 4(2) of the Act, then there is no necessity to call a witness for examination or for cross examination
(iii) The Court below has not taken into consideration that even 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 though it is a judicial discretion to allow cross examination, but still the facts of the case have to be looked into to check if there are any compelling reasons to allow the respondent to cross examine the petitioner/landlord.
(iv) The Court below failed to consider the fact that the application filed by the petitioner / landlord was under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act and so the only point of consideration by the Rent Court is to check if any registered written agreement has been entered into between the parties or not.
(v) The Court below has erred in allowing M.P.No.2 of 2025 without taking into consideration that TNRRRLT Act does not contain a provision for a decision on the dispute regarding title in the proceedings under the Act before the Rent Court unlike the predecessor enactment viz., Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
To strengthen his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied upon the following orders:
(i) J.Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah [CRP(PD)No.2532 of 2021 dated 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 05.08.2022]
(ii)Jata Shankar Mishra v. Mrs.Chembadevi [CRP.No.4332 of 2022 dated 10.01.2023]
(iii) S.K.Balasingam v. M/s.Royal Churidhar and Royal Materials [CRP.No.2878 of 2022 dated 17.03.2023]
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / tenant would submit that the many triable issues to be determined and the same will be determined only through full fledged trial. It is a settled principle through the orders of this Court in M/s.M.A.Mansoor Refai v. Shafak Hameed Thaika [CRP No.2811 of 2021 dated 20.12.2021.] that in case when the tenant denies title of the landlord, it is quiet necessary to permit the tenant to cross examine the landlord for effective adjudication of the case. If the chance of cross examination is not allowed, the tenant would be gravely prejudiced and put to hardship.
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 entire materials available on record.
9. It is seen from the records that the tenant / Senthilkumar has filed the Suit in O.S.No.364 of 2024 and the tenant / Shanmugam has filed the Suit in O.S.No.363 of 2024, wherein they have not denied the title of the landlord and they have arrayed the revision petitioners as landlord in the Suit. It is to be noted that the landlord has filed a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017, in which the tenant have questioned the title of the landlord and requested for cross examination of the landlord.
10. According to the respondents / tenants, there is no written rental agreement between the tenants and the landlord. It is to be noted that once the Rent Court and Rent Tribunal ascertain that there is no written agreement between the tenant and the landlord with reference to Section 4(2) of the Act, then there is no necessity to call a witness for examination or for cross examination Any party attempting to prolong and protract the proceedings under the guise of examination of witnesses, the same cannot be granted by the Rent Court and the 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 procedure as contemplated in compliance with the Rules of Natural Justice are to be followed. [Jata Shankar Mishra v. Mrs.Chembadevi, CRP.No.4332 of 2022 dated 10.01.2023].
11. When an application has been filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, the only point of consideration by the Rent Court is to check if any registered written agreement has been entered into between the parties or not. If the parties are unable to establish the same or no document has been filed regarding the written agreement between the tenant and the landlord, then examination of witnesses or cross examination of witnesses may not be required.
12. There is no specific reason assigned by the respondents / tenants in support of the affidavits filed for them seeking for cross examination of the landlord. The Court below has not taken into consideration of the fact that eventhough it is a judicial discretion to allow cross examination, but still the facts of the case have to be looked into to check if there are any compelling reasons to allow the respondents to cross examine the revision petitioner. The respondents 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025 himself has admitted that they were paying rent to the revision petitioner / landlord and so the respondent is estopped from denying the title of the petitioner, as it is squarely hit by Section 2(c) of the TNRRRLT Act.
13. That apart, the Rent Court cannot go into the dispute regarding title of the landlord and therefore, permitting the tenants to let in evidence on the question of title should not have been permitted. The Court below did not consider the fact that the respondents / tenants have paid rent to the revision petitioner/landlord, that the respondents have issued a legal notice to the petitioner and has filed a suit against the petitioner without disputing the title of the petitioner / landlord and they have expressed their willingness to enter into a rental agreement in the legal notice, which completely bars the respondent to turn around and question the title of the revision petitioner / Landlord and therefore, the Court below should not have allowed M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 by taking into consideration the crucial aspects of this case. In the light of the reasons assigned above, this Court finds merit in these Civil Revision Petitions and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
14. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The order dated 11.08.2025 made in M.P.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.43 of 2024 and the order dated 11.08.2025 made in M.P.No.1 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.44 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sholinganallur are set aside. No costs.
10.10.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Sholinganallur.
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
Jvm
CRP.(PD)Nos.3796 and 3798 of 2025
10.10.2025
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )