In C.R.P.No.4332 of 2022-MAD HC- Once Rent Court & Tribunal ascertain that there is no written agreement between tenant & landlord with reference to Sec.4(2) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights & Responsibilities of Landlords & Tenants Act, then there is no necessity to call witness for examination or cross-examination: Madras HC
Justice S.M.Subramaniam [10-01-2023]

Read Order: JATA SHANKAR MISHRA V. MRS.CHEMBADEVI

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, January 13, 2023: In a case pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the Madras High Court has observed that in the context of Section 4(2) in the event of no written agreement between the tenant and the landlord, the landlord or the tenant shall have the right to apply for termination of tenancy under Clause (a) to Section 21(1).
 

The Single Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam dismissed the instant revision petition by observing that in the present Civil Revision Petition, the procedure adopted by the Rent Court was in consonance with the provisions and the landlord in the present case, confined his ground for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017  and therefore, the Rent Court had rightly posted the matter for inquiry.

The revision petitioner was the tenant and the respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g). During its pendency, the respondent/landlord had not pressed the grounds raised under Sections 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g) and the  petition was pending on the sole ground between the tenant and the landlord.

The grievance of the petitioner was that the Rent Court in the name of summary enquiry examined the landlord as the first prosecution witness with regard to the mandatory compliance of Section 4(2). No cross examination was allowed by the Rent Court and the Rent Court is proceeding to pass an order based on the mandatory compliance of Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act and accordingly, the case was posted for enquiry of the tenant. 

In this regard, the Docket order was passed on the file of the XI Small Causes Court at Chennai and the said order was under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

After considering the submissions, the Court took into consideration Section 4 (2) of the TNRRRLT Act.  In view of the same, the Court noted that the  spirit of provision is unambiguous that the tenant and the landlord have to enter into an agreement in writing with regard to the tenancy within a period of 575 days from the date of commencement of this Act. If no such agreement in writing has been entered into between the parties, then anyone of the party has got a right to apply for termination of the tenancy under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 21.

The intention of the legislature with reference to Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act is that the tenant ship is to be regulated and no party shall take undue advantage of the lengthy procedures contemplated under the old Act or abuse the process of law. 

“In the context of Section 4(2) of the Act, in the event of no written agreement between the tenant and the landlord, the landlord or the tenant shall have the right to apply for termination of tenancy under Clause (a) to Sub Section (1) of Section 21”, the Bench said. 

When the tenant or the landlord is unable to establish that there is a written agreement of tenancy between them and if the Rent Court finds that no such document has been filed, then there is no necessity to call a witness for examination or for cross-examination. In such circumstances, the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal are empowered to decide the issues with reference to the grounds raised under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, the Bench noted.

Conducting the case on the hearing date is the Rule. Adjournment is an exception. Exceptions cannot be made as a Rule. Thus, adjournments cannot be granted by the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal in violation of SubSection (5) of Section 36. Any attempt made by the parties to prolong the case cannot be appreciated and the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal shall deal with such attempts appropriately by imposing maximum cost, the Court opined.    

 In the present Civil Revision Petition, the procedure adopted by the Rent Court was in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the landlord in the present case, confined his ground for eviction under Section 21(2) (a) of the Act and therefore, the Rent Court had rightly posted the matter for inquiry, the Court noted 

“Once the Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal ascertain that there is no written agreement between the tenant and the landlord with reference to Section 4(2) of the Act, then there is no necessity to call a witness for examination or for cross-examination, the Court further noted without finding any infirmity in respect of the Docket Order on the file of the Small Causes Court at Chennai, which was impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.