Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine in Simple Eviction Proceedings: Madras High Court

“When a petition is filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2017, a tenant does not have a right of cross-examination.” – Justice V. Lakshminarayanan

On September 9, 2024, the Madras High Court delivered a crucial ruling in a case involving eviction proceedings, reiterating that tenants do not have the right to cross-examine landlords in straightforward eviction cases filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (the "2017 Act"). The case involved six civil revision petitions filed by tenants against an earlier order by the Rent Controller that denied their request to reopen evidence and recall a key witness for cross-examination.

The case centered around eviction proceedings initiated by the landlords—Sonu S. Nankani, Deepak S. Nankani, and Hitesh S. Nankani—against the tenants, Chandra, Inderlal, and S.J. Jayaseelan. The landlords had approached the Rent Controller under Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act, which deals with eviction on the grounds of non-compliance with tenancy agreement requirements under Section 4 of the same Act.

The landlords originally included another claim under Section 21(2)(e) (grounds relating to personal occupation), but this was later dropped, and the case proceeded solely under Section 21(2)(a), focusing on whether a valid and legally enforceable tenancy agreement existed between the parties.

The key argument raised by the tenants was their request to cross-examine the landlords’ witness, P.W.1, in order to challenge the evidence presented by the landlords regarding the tenancy agreement. The tenants filed petitions seeking the reopening of evidence and the recall of the witness for cross-examination, which were dismissed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, the tenants approached the High Court with these civil revision petitions.

The main legal question before the Madras High Court was whether tenants have the right to cross-examine witnesses in eviction proceedings filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act, particularly when the core issue is the validity of the tenancy agreement.

Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act states that if no legally binding tenancy agreement exists between the landlord and tenant, the tenant is liable to face eviction. The court had to decide whether cross-examination is permissible in cases where the existence of the tenancy agreement is the sole point of contention, and no other disputes (such as the relationship between the parties) are raised.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, delivering the judgment, referred to a prior decision in J. Thennarasu v. Anita Nalliah, which established that a tenant does not have the right to cross-examine witnesses unless the relationship of landlord and tenant itself is disputed. In the present case, the tenancy relationship was admitted by both parties, leaving the issue of whether a legally valid tenancy agreement existed as the sole matter to be decided.

“When a petition is filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act, this Court in J. Thennarasu vs. Anita Nalliah… held that a tenant does not have a right of cross-examination,” the court stated. It emphasized that the right to cross-examine is limited to situations where there is a dispute over fundamental facts like the tenancy relationship, which was not the case here.

The court also underscored that Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act is a "simple provision," requiring the court to only verify the existence of a valid agreement as per Section 4. If no such agreement exists, eviction follows as a consequence. Since the issue was limited to the validity of the agreement, there was no legal ground to allow cross-examination.

At the conclusion of the judgment, counsel for the tenants, Mr. B. Singaravelu, submitted that the Rent Controller had passed an ex parte order on August 23, 2024, against the tenants despite being informed of the civil revision petitions filed before the High Court. He pointed out that the order copy from the Rent Controller was only issued on August 8, 2024, and the tenants had promptly approached the High Court.

The High Court acknowledged this argument and set aside the ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller. The court gave the tenants a final opportunity to present their evidence before the Rent Controller by September 18, 2024. However, the court warned that if the tenants failed to appear on the specified date, they would forfeit their right to contest the case further. The court also directed the Rent Controller to conclude the proceedings by October 4, 2024.

Right to Cross-Examine: Tenants do not have an automatic right to cross-examine landlords in eviction cases filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the 2017 Act unless there is a dispute over the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship.

Validity of Agreement: The case revolved around the absence of a legally valid tenancy agreement. If no such agreement is found, the tenant faces eviction as per Section 21(2)(a).

Ex Parte Orders: The court set aside the ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller, allowing the tenants one final opportunity to submit their defense by providing evidence before September 18, 2024.

The High Court dismissed all six civil revision petitions, reaffirming that the tenants had no right to cross-examine witnesses in the specific context of Section 21(2)(a) proceedings. However, the court provided a brief window for the tenants to submit additional evidence and defend their case.

Both sides were instructed to argue their case before the Rent Controller on September 20, 2024, with a final decision to be made by October 4, 2024.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

Chandra & Ors. v. Sonu S. Nankani & Ors.