P.Ponraj v. J.Baby

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and CMP.No.18490 of 2026 P.Ponraj s/o Palanisamy, No.347, MTH Road, Varatharajapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. ..Petitioner in both CRP's Vs J.Baby w/o Jawarilal, No.16A, Harikrishnan Naidu Street, Varatharajapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. rep by the Power Agent K.Jawarilal, s/o A.Kannaram, No.16A, Harikrishnan Naidu Street, Varatharajapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. ..Respondent in both CRP's Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order 30.06.2026 made in MP Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 in RLTOP No.40 of 2025 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Ambattur. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): (in both these CRP's) Mr.G.Balamanikandan C O M M O N O R D E R C.R.P.No.4239 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order dated

30.06.2026, passed by the District Munsif in M.P.No.3 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P No.40 of 2025. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner who is a tenant under the respondent, seeking to reopen the petitioner's side evidence for the purpose of cross examining the respondent has been dismissed.

¶2C.R.P.No.4241 of 2026 has been filed by very same petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the District Munsif cum Rent Controller Ambattur in M.P.No.4 of 2026 in R.L.TOP.No.40 of 2025. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner (tenant) under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act 2017 (in short 'the Act 2017') seeking leave to cross examine the respondent (landlord) has been dismissed.

¶3Since both the impugned orders arise out of the same R.L.T.O.P viz., R.L.T.O.P.No.40/2025, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by a common order. Page3 of 6

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there became a necessity for the petitioner to cross examine the respondent (landlord), since without there being any pleading, the respondent (landlord) has filed the petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act 2017 on the ground of non execution of a lease agreement by the petitioner (tenant). He also drew the attention of this Court to the pleadings contained in the petition for eviction filed by the respondent (landlord) under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act 2017 and would reiterate that there are no pleadings in the petition that the respondent had called upon the petitioner to come and execute a lease agreement.

¶5In the impugned order, the contention of the petitioner (tenant) as raised in these Civil Revisions Petitions has been rejected by the Rent Court. The Rent Court while dismissing the applications has given a finding that since there is no dispute of landlord/tenancy relationship between the parties, the request for cross examination of the landlord by the petitioner has to be rejected.

¶6This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Rent Court under the impugned orders for rejecting the petitioner's applications. As per Section 21(2)(a) of the Act 2017, the said provision does not stipulate that there must be a pleading in the petition seeking for eviction on the ground that the tenant has not executed a lease agreement after coming into force of Act Page4 of 6 2017. It is also settled law that the provisions of CPC are strictly not applicable to the Act 2017.

¶7Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent which fact is also not disputed by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, when the landlord-tenancy relationship is not in dispute, and when the right to cross examination is only a discretionary relief to be granted by the Rent Court and since the Rent Court under the impugned order has given reasons as to why the said discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner on account of the undisputed fact that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Rent Court. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these Civil Revision Petitions. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order arr Page5 of 6 To The District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Ambattur. Page6 of 6

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. arr 23-07-2026 Page7 of 6