Madras High Court
M/S.Vacher Mills Stores vs K.Gunasekaran on 18 September, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.20233 of 2024
M/s.Vacher Mills Stores,
A Regd. Partnership Firm,
Rep. by its partners,
K.Anil Vacher .. Petitioner
Versus
1. K.Gunasekaran
2. K.Manimaran .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair order and decretal order passed in M.P.No.3 of
2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, dated 15.06.2024 on the file of the
learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Murugendran
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, dated 15.06.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7 C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
2. The petitioner is the tenant. He took out an application under Section 37(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 to summon the landlords before the Court and to subject himself to cross-examination. The said petition was dismissed and hence, this revision.
3. There is no dispute over the relationship between the parties. The civil revision petitioner admits to the tenancy between the landlords and himself. This satisfies the jurisdictional fact of existence of the jural relationship between a landlord and a tenant. It is the case of the landlords that no agreement was entered into between them and the tenant in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Hence, he invoked Section 21(2)(a) of the said legislation seeking eviction. A counter-affidavit was filed by the tenant and the matter is listed for evidence.
4. The tenant, at that stage, took out an application stating that the landlords falsely averred that they made attempts to enter into an agreement with him and it was he, who refused to enter into the agreement. The tenant wanted to disprove the statement and therefore, he filed the petition to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024 summon the landlords. This petition was received in M.P.No.3 of 2024 and after receipt of a counter-affidavit, the petition was dismissed. Hence, this revision.
5. Mr.G.Murugendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Section 4(2) read with Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, it is the duty of the landlords to show that they made attempts to enter into an agreement and it was the tenant who refused to do the same. He would plead that without substantiating this plea, a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is not maintainable. He would submit that the words "failed to enter into an agreement" show that the landlords should have made some attempts to enter into an agreement and the process of entering into the agreement should have failed on account of the fact that the tenant did not do so. Though this aspect was pleaded by the landlords, since the tenant wants to disprove it, he would plead that he is entitled for admission and an interim order in the revision.
6. I have considered the arguments of Mr.G.Murugendran. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
7. The position of law was settled by the judgment of this Court in S.Muruganandam Vs. J.Joseph, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 375, by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian, wherein, it is held that even if the mistake lies on the part of the landlord in not entering into an agreement, all that the Rent Controller would have to see, while disposing of the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, is the existence of the agreement. Though the argument of Mr.G.Murugendran is very inviting, if I were to accept that plea, I would be literally rewriting Section 21(2)(a) of the Act from the words "failed to enter into an agreement" to "failed to enter into an agreement on account of the mistake of the tenant". The power to amend the statute is not available with this Court. The section has to be read as it is, unless and until, it is going to result in absurdity.
8. The purpose of bringing the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 was to provide a summary procedure for eviction of tenant. If the interpretation of Mr.G.Murugendran is to be accepted by me, I would be defeating the purpose of the new Rent Control Act and I would be pushing the parties to the same protracted trial that used to take place under Section 10(2)(1) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024 the repealed Rent Control Act. The learned Rent Controller has given cogent reasons in the paragraph No.7 of the impugned order. She has correctly appreciated the law that when a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is filed, the Court cannot look into the reason for failure to enter into a tenancy agreement under Section 4(2) of the Act.
9. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this revision. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. At this stage, Mr.G.Murugendran would submit that on account of the fact that the Revision Petition was preferred, he was not in a position to address arguments before the Trial Court and hence, his evidence was closed. He would plead that if an opportunity is granted to him, he would make his submissions before the learned Rent Controller on 19.09.2024. Hence, the learned Rent Controller shall give an opportunity to Mr.G.Murugendran to advance his submissions before the Court below on all aspects, including the aspect that Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. The learned Rent Controller is requested to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024 act upon a web copy of this order and will not insist Mr.G.Murugendran to present a certified copy of the same.
18.09.2024
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
grs
To
The XIII Judge,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.20233 of 2024
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/7