DEVARAJ JAIN Vs. SHAFAK HAMEED THAIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant, against whom the proceedings were launched under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is on revision. Challenge is to the order of the Rent Court, rejecting an application filed by the tenant seeking permission to cross-examine the witness, who appeared on the side of the landlords.

(2.) The original eviction petition was filed in RLTOP.No.375 of 2019 seeking eviction under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tnants Act, contending that the tenant has not entered into an agreement of lease as required under Subsec. 2 of Sec. 4 of the said Act. The tenant would claim that he was in possession of the property in question, as a tenant, even prior to the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Certain proceedings were launched by the landlords under the predecessor enactment namely, Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking eviction.

(3.) The landlords failed in their attempts to get an eviction order under the said enactment. It is also stated that the landlords had filed an appeal against dismissal of their eviction petition under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act with a delay. Though the delay was condoned, they have not prosecuted the proceedings further. Taking advantage of the enactment of the new act, in the interregnum, the landlords have come up with this application for eviction. Pending these proceedings, the Trial Court namely, the Rent Court examined both the landlord and the tenant under Sec. 37 of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act. Thereafter, the landlords filed a proof affidavit and Exs.Pl to P3 were marked. It is at this stage, the tenant filed an instant application seeking permission to cross-examine the witness of the landlords. The said application was rejected by the Rent Court on the ground that it is wholly unnecessary and there is no necessity for examination or cross-examination of the witness.