High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.01.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.5272 of 2024and C.M.P.No.29462 of 2024M/s.Hindustan Trading CompanyProprietor P.N.Swaminathan,Shop No.2 and 3 facing Main RoadGround Floor, No.8, Kasi Chetti StreetChennai-600 079...... PetitionerVsLakshmibai ..... RespondentsPRAYER : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of rejection of MP.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024 in R.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai (Memo filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record).For Petitioner : Mr.V.ManoharFor Respondent :Mr.S.Parthasarathyfor Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar * * * * *Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed in MP.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The tenant is the civil revision petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their rank in the R.L.T.O.P. 3. R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 has been presented by one Lakshmi Bai as against the civil revision petitioner. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. Lakshmi Bai is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. During the course of proceedings, it was alleged by the tenant that Lakshmi Bai had not authorised the deponent A.W.1 viz., one Dhanesh to depose before the Court. In fact, it was alleged that Lakshmi Bai is not aware of the initiation of the eviction proceedings. 4. This constrained Lakshmi Bai to file M.P.No.1 of 2024. In the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024said application, she pleaded that it was only on her instructions that the R.L.T.O.P. came to be filed by her lawyer and for that purpose, she be allowed to state the facts before the Court in the alternative, she prayed that the Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record her testimony regarding the same. She added that she had requested her brother Mr.Dhanesh to help her in regard to tenancy matters.5. This application was opposed by the tenant. The learned Trial Judge allowed the application. Lakshmi Bai appeared before the Court on 14.10.2024. She deposed as follows:vd;Dila bgah; y&;kp gha;/ ehd; jhd; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ vjph;kDjhuh; vd;dplk; thlifjhuuhf ,Uf;fpwhh;/ mtUf;F vjpuhf ehd; jhd; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,d;W M$uhfp ,Uf;Fk; nldp&; vd;gth; vd;Dila rnfhjuu; Mthh;/6. The learned counsel for the tenant opposed the statement pleading that he should be permitted to cross examine Lakshmi Bai to know if she was aware of the nature of the case and whether she was instrumental in filing the present case. It was further added that Lakshmi Bai has been tutored and the statement given by her cannot be Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024taken into consideration. This objection was noted by the Court and proceedings were ordered on 14.10.2024. 7. During the course of examination, the Court had asked the said Lakshmi Bai if she was aware of the case in the following terms,“,e;j tHf;if gw;wp c';fSf;F bjupe;j tptu';fis Twt[k;” . The said Lakshmi Bai is said to have answered, “ I want increment of rent. That is why I want to vacate them. My brother is handling the case.” Recording the same, the matter was adjourned.8. Thereafter, an application was filed in M.P.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024. Prayer in this application is to reopen and recall A.W.1 for further cross examination. The learned Trial Judge rejected the petition. Hence this revision.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 20249. When the matter came up for admission, I ordered notice and requested Mr.V.Manohar to serve the papers on the counsel who represented the landlady in the Court below. Papers have been served and Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.10. I heard Mr.V.Manohar for the petitioner and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for the respondent.11. Mr.Manohar pleads that he wants to cross examine A.W.1 with respect to the issue as to whether he has been authorised by the landlady to file the case. He states that the recording made by the learned Trial Judge regarding identity of Lakshmi Bai is erroneous. He states that all that the petitioner requires is to cross examine A.W.1 as he has not been authorised by the landlady to file the petition. He further asserts that the landlady is not aware of any proceedings that has been initiated in her name.12. Per contra, Mr.Parthasarathy invited my attention to the evidence that has been recorded on 14.10.2024 to point out that at no Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024point of time in the evidence, the learned counsel for the tenant had objected to the identity of the person examined on that date. He further states that the landlady herself had stated that her brother is handling the case and therefore, there is no necessity to entertain the revision.13. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.14. R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 has been filed invoking Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The point that has to be considered by the Rent Control Court at the time of deciding the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is whether an agreement of tenancy exists or not. This Court in J.Thennarasu -vs- Anita Nalliah in C.R.P.(PD) No.2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022 had held that unless and until the tenant projects an agreement and the landlord denies the same, the question of cross examination of the party does not arise. The cross examination as seen from the records of the Court, had been allowed only because it was pleaded by the tenant that the person who is conducting the matter has not been authorised by Lakshmi Bai. This doubt that has been created by the tenant constrained the Court to allow Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024the application to record the evidence of Lakshmi Bai, pursuant to its order in M.P.No.1 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024. The tenant had an opportunity to cross examine the landlady and had also asked a question to the landlady. She has also answered the same.15. Once the doubt that had been created has been dispelled by the landlady, the case now proceeds back to the position laid down by Justice N.Seshasayee in the aforesaid judgment. That being the settled position, the question of re-opening the evidence for further cross examination of A.W.1 does not arise. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.31.01.2025 Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoKSTToThe XVI Small Causes Court, ChennaiPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.KSTC.R.P.No.5272 of 202431.01.2025Page 8 of 8

C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 31.01.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.5272 of 2024and C.M.P.No.29462 of 2024M/s.Hindustan Trading CompanyProprietor P.N.Swaminathan,Shop No.2 and 3 facing Main RoadGround Floor, No.8, Kasi Chetti StreetChennai-600 079...... PetitionerVsLakshmibai ..... RespondentsPRAYER : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of rejection of MP.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024 in R.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai (Memo filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record).For Petitioner : Mr.V.ManoharFor Respondent :Mr.S.Parthasarathyfor Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar * * * * *Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed in MP.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The tenant is the civil revision petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their rank in the R.L.T.O.P. 3. R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 has been presented by one Lakshmi Bai as against the civil revision petitioner. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. Lakshmi Bai is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. During the course of proceedings, it was alleged by the tenant that Lakshmi Bai had not authorised the deponent A.W.1 viz., one Dhanesh to depose before the Court. In fact, it was alleged that Lakshmi Bai is not aware of the initiation of the eviction proceedings. 4. This constrained Lakshmi Bai to file M.P.No.1 of 2024. In the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024said application, she pleaded that it was only on her instructions that the R.L.T.O.P. came to be filed by her lawyer and for that purpose, she be allowed to state the facts before the Court in the alternative, she prayed that the Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record her testimony regarding the same. She added that she had requested her brother Mr.Dhanesh to help her in regard to tenancy matters.5. This application was opposed by the tenant. The learned Trial Judge allowed the application. Lakshmi Bai appeared before the Court on 14.10.2024. She deposed as follows:vd;Dila bgah; y&;kp gha;/ ehd; jhd; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ vjph;kDjhuh; vd;dplk; thlifjhuuhf ,Uf;fpwhh;/ mtUf;F vjpuhf ehd; jhd; ,e;j tHf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,d;W M$uhfp ,Uf;Fk; nldp&; vd;gth; vd;Dila rnfhjuu; Mthh;/6. The learned counsel for the tenant opposed the statement pleading that he should be permitted to cross examine Lakshmi Bai to know if she was aware of the nature of the case and whether she was instrumental in filing the present case. It was further added that Lakshmi Bai has been tutored and the statement given by her cannot be Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024taken into consideration. This objection was noted by the Court and proceedings were ordered on 14.10.2024. 7. During the course of examination, the Court had asked the said Lakshmi Bai if she was aware of the case in the following terms,“,e;j tHf;if gw;wp c';fSf;F bjupe;j tptu';fis Twt[k;” . The said Lakshmi Bai is said to have answered, “ I want increment of rent. That is why I want to vacate them. My brother is handling the case.” Recording the same, the matter was adjourned.8. Thereafter, an application was filed in M.P.SR.Nos.43016 and 43017 of 2024. Prayer in this application is to reopen and recall A.W.1 for further cross examination. The learned Trial Judge rejected the petition. Hence this revision.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 20249. When the matter came up for admission, I ordered notice and requested Mr.V.Manohar to serve the papers on the counsel who represented the landlady in the Court below. Papers have been served and Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.10. I heard Mr.V.Manohar for the petitioner and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for the respondent.11. Mr.Manohar pleads that he wants to cross examine A.W.1 with respect to the issue as to whether he has been authorised by the landlady to file the case. He states that the recording made by the learned Trial Judge regarding identity of Lakshmi Bai is erroneous. He states that all that the petitioner requires is to cross examine A.W.1 as he has not been authorised by the landlady to file the petition. He further asserts that the landlady is not aware of any proceedings that has been initiated in her name.12. Per contra, Mr.Parthasarathy invited my attention to the evidence that has been recorded on 14.10.2024 to point out that at no Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024point of time in the evidence, the learned counsel for the tenant had objected to the identity of the person examined on that date. He further states that the landlady herself had stated that her brother is handling the case and therefore, there is no necessity to entertain the revision.13. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials placed on record.14. R.L.T.O.P.No.472 of 2023 has been filed invoking Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The point that has to be considered by the Rent Control Court at the time of deciding the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is whether an agreement of tenancy exists or not. This Court in J.Thennarasu -vs- Anita Nalliah in C.R.P.(PD) No.2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022 had held that unless and until the tenant projects an agreement and the landlord denies the same, the question of cross examination of the party does not arise. The cross examination as seen from the records of the Court, had been allowed only because it was pleaded by the tenant that the person who is conducting the matter has not been authorised by Lakshmi Bai. This doubt that has been created by the tenant constrained the Court to allow Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024the application to record the evidence of Lakshmi Bai, pursuant to its order in M.P.No.1 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024. The tenant had an opportunity to cross examine the landlady and had also asked a question to the landlady. She has also answered the same.15. Once the doubt that had been created has been dispelled by the landlady, the case now proceeds back to the position laid down by Justice N.Seshasayee in the aforesaid judgment. That being the settled position, the question of re-opening the evidence for further cross examination of A.W.1 does not arise. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.31.01.2025 Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoKSTToThe XVI Small Causes Court, ChennaiPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5272 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.KSTC.R.P.No.5272 of 202431.01.2025Page 8 of 8