Madras High Court
M/S.Ennore Muds & Chemicals vs K.N.Lakshmi on 11 August, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.13013 of 2022
1.M/s.Ennore Muds & Chemicals,
Represented by its partner,
No.A12, 1st Floor, II Avenue,
East Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102.
2.N.S.R.Kishore ... Petitioners
Vs
K.N.Lakshmi ... Respondent
Prayer:- Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to
set aside the order dated 16.6.2022 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in
R.L.T.O.P.No.715 of 2021 by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent
Control Court) Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Muiruddin Sheriff
Page 1 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 16.6.2022 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.715 of 2021 by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Court) Chennai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
3. The revision petitioners are the respondents, against whom, the respondent/petitioner has filed an eviction petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.715 of 2021 on the ground that the revision petitioners/respondents have failed to enter into a fresh lease agreement after the death of original tenant one Rajagopal. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the revision petitioners/respondents filed a petition in M.P.No.1 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to cross examine the respondent/petitioner as P.W.1 on various aspects and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners/respondents have preferred the present petition.
Page 2 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022
4. Mr.M.Muniruddin Sheriff, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents submitted that even according to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the eviction petition filed by respondent/petitioner it is stated that one Rajagopal is a tenant in his individual capacity and at no point of time, the first revision petitioner/firm had been the tenant under the land lady; so, the respondent has to be cross examined on the aspect of who is the tenant, whether the firm is the tenant and whether the petition filed without impleading the legal heirs of Raja Gopalan is maintainable has to be decided.
5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that only if P.W.1 is allowed to be cross examined, the facts can be proved before the Court. But, the learned Rent Controller, without considering the merits of the case, had chosen to dismiss the same.
6.The attention of this Court is also drawn to the recent decision of this Court held in common order dated 05.08.2022 in C.R.P.(PD)No.2532 of 2021 etc., batch, wherein The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee listed certain situations in which the cross examination might be necessary and it is extracted as under : Page 3 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022 Provisions Content of Possible How far can be If cross examination of law & dispute proved without cross will be required Head of examination Dispute Sec.21(1) Eviction sought on Ordinarily not Cross examination
(a) ground of failure to necessary unless the may be necessary enter into a tenancy case falls in category only if the case falls agreement. Here, a (a) or (b) which in category (a) or (b) dispute can arise, cannot be proved The Rent Court
(a) if the tenant through written should take care to denies tenancy; or document. see that cross examination seeking
(b) The tenant to establish reasons setting up a tenancy for not entering into which the landlord lease agreement etc denies cannot be entertained See:A.M.Mansoor Refai Vs. Shafak Hameed Thaika, [C.R.P.No.2811 of 2021 order dt:20.12.2021]
7. In the said judgment, two situations in which the dispute under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act are stated to be present (a) if the tenant denies tenancy; or (b) the tenant setting up a tenancy which the landlord denies. It is observed by the Court that cross examination may be necessary only if the case falls in category (a) Page 4 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022 or (b) and The Rent Court should be cautious that examination sought to establish the reasons for not entering into lease agreement etc., are not allowed.
8. In the case on hand, the very contention of the revision petitioners/respondents is that the original tenancy was between the deceased Rajagopal and not with the first revision petitioner/firm. The fact remains that the tenancy was initiated by virtue of a written agreement. Under such circumstances, it is easier and comfortable to produce the very rental agreement itself to show who was the original tenant and whether it was the individual or the firm.
9. It is seen in the pre-litigation notice itself that the respondent/petitioner has sought for the details of the legal heirs of one Rajagopal and it was also furnished. So, again the maintainability of the petition which has been filed consequent to the impleadment of the legal heirs’ details furnished by the revision petitioners themselves, can only be a question of law and not on facts.
10. The questions now raised by the revision petitioners have got the scope for getting established on the basis of the documents produced and not by any oral Page 5 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022 evidence. The very object of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 itself is to create a fast-track mechanism for resolving the litigations between the landlord and tenant in respect of their rights and their liabilities arising out of the tenancy. Even though, certain situations are listed down by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Court) Chennai, they are only illustrative and not conclusive. The Rent Controller has to regulate these necessities on a case-to-case basis, basing upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The facts of this case do not require any necessity for oral evidence and that too cross examination of P.W.1. The learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application, which in my opinion, it does not require any interference.
11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grievance of the revision petitioners is that in a petition filed to seek leave for cross examination of P.W.1, the learned Rent Controller had rendered a finding about the entitlement of the landlord for getting re-possession under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Since such kind of finding can only be given in the final order passed by the Rent Controller, it is appropriate to impress upon the Rent Page 6 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022 Controller to decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations that has been made in this petition and decide the issue dispassionately while passing the final orders.
12. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order dated 16.6.2022 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in R.L.T.O.P.No.715 of 2021 by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Court) Chennai is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.08.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms Page 7 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022 R.N.MANJULA, J.
ms To
1.The X Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Court) Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.R.P(PD).No.2547 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.13013 of 2022 11.08.2022 Page 8 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis