Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court

19 September 2024 1:28 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Judicature at Madras delivered a significant ruling in the series of cases filed by Chandra, Inderlal, and S.J. Jayaseelan against Sonu S. Nankani and others. The court addressed whether tenants have the right to cross-examine landlords under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The court affirmed that tenants do not possess such a right unless they dispute the landlord-tenant relationship, thereby upholding the orders of the Rent Controller and providing clarity on this aspect of landlord-tenant law.

The tenants in this case had filed Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court against the landlords. The landlords initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. Initially, the proceedings were also filed under Section 21(2)(e) of the Act but were later "not pressed," leaving only the Section 21(2)(a) grounds.

The primary concern in Section 21(2)(a) is the existence of an agreement between the landlord and tenant as mandated by Section 4 of the Act. In the absence of such an agreement, the tenant would face eviction. The tenants sought to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, prompting the tenants to file these revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The crux of the legal issue was whether tenants have a right to cross-examine the landlord when there is no dispute over the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. The tenants argued that they should be allowed to cross-examine the landlords to challenge the eviction proceedings. However, the court referred to its previous ruling in J. Thennarasu vs. Anita Nalliah (C.R.P.(PD).No.2532 of 2021) where it was held that a tenant does not have a right to cross-examine the landlord in cases filed under Section 21(2)(a) unless the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan upheld the previous ruling, stating, "The head of Section 21(2)(a) is extremely simple. All that the Court requires to see is whether the landlord and tenant have entered into an agreement as required under Section 4 of the said Act." The court further emphasized that when a petition is filed under Section 21(2)(a), the tenant does not have the right to cross-examination unless there is a dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship.

In this case, since the tenants did not dispute the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, they were not entitled to cross-examine the landlord. The court found no reason to interfere with the Rent Controller's decision, dismissing the Civil Revision Petitions.

However, the court recognized the tenants' right to present their defense and noted that the ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller on August 23, 2024, were to be set aside. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed the tenants an opportunity to submit evidence in their defense by September 18, 2024. He cautioned, "In case the tenants do not produce themselves before the learned Rent Controller on that date, they will forfeit the right of enquiry before the said authority." This decision ensured the tenants could present their defense but maintained the limitation on cross-examination rights in the absence of a disputed landlord-tenant relationship.

The Madras High Court has clarified the scope of tenant rights under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. It upheld that tenants do not have the right to cross-examine landlords in eviction proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) unless there is a dispute over the landlord-tenant relationship. This ruling reinforces the simplicity of Section 21(2)(a) proceedings, focusing on the existence of an agreement as per Section 4 of the Act. The court dismissed the tenants' petitions but granted them a final opportunity to present their defense, ensuring a fair process while affirming the boundaries of cross-examination in such cases.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

Chandra, Inderlal, S.J. Jayaseelan vs. Sonu S. Nankani and Others

Similar News