J.THENNARASU Vs. ANITA NALLIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this batch of revisions relates to the power of the Rent Controller to allow cross-examination of witnesses under Sec. 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter would be referred to as the Act). Before dealing with this issue, the brief facts involved in each of the cases are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_156_LAWS(MAD)8_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In order to appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to set out Sec. 36 of the Act. It reads:

(3.) An analysis of Sec. 36 of the Act shows that it neither prohibits the right of cross examination, nor has it made it an automatic procedural facility as in a proceeding in the classical school of adversarial jurisprudence. On the nature of enquiry, the Act enables the Rent Court to regulate it with its own procedure, but the legislative thrust is on the adherence to the principles of natural justice. This would imply that the Rent Court, even as it regulates its procedure must ensure its conformity with the rules of natural justice. Principles of natural justice, in its barest form involves the need to hear the one who would be affected by a proceeding before a Court or a Tribunal. But, the issue here is not about granting a party before the Rent Court an opportunity of being heard, but is about how much a litigant must be heard by it: Is it confined to a mere hearing of the rival parties on their respective versions of the case by granting them an opportunity to adduce their evidence in support of it, or does it extend to giving them an opportunity to discredit the evidence of the other side through cross examination?