Madras High Court
Srk Restaurant Private Limited vs T.Wilson Thomas on 7 January, 2025
C.R.P.No.4962 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4962 of 2024
and CMP.No.27929 of 2024
SRK Restaurant Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mrs.S.Vanitha Kumari
W/o.Senthil Kumar,
No.1/6 & 1/7, Bazaart Road,
(Opp. MMM Hospital),
Mugappair East, Chennai – 600 037. .. Petitioner
Versus
T.Wilson Thomas .. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the order dated 22.08.2024 made in R.L.T.O.P.No.24 of
2022 on the file of Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court at Ambattur
in rejecting the document and consequently direct the Rent Controller cum
District Munsif Court at Ambattur to receive the rejected document as
evidence and mark the same as exhibit in R.L.T.O.P.No.24 of 2022.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4962 of 2024
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Vanitha
for Mr.A.Rajarajan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the
learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Ambattur in R.L.T.O.P.No.24
of 2022 dated 22.08.2024.
2.The civil revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the
landlord. R.L.T.O.P.No.24 of 2022 has been presented seeking for eviction
of the tenant on the ground that it attracts the provisions of Sections
21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(c) and 21(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of
Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017
[TNRRRLT Act]. For the purpose of disposal of this revision, I need not
delve deep into the facts of the case. Suffice it to state that there is no
dispute in the jural relationship or in the extent and occupation of the
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.According to the parties, the tenant had to pay advance of
Rs.65,00,000/- and a monthly rent of Rs.6,50,000/-. The period of tenancy
was between 01.07.2016 and 31.05.2017.
4.Alleging that the tenant had not entered into a fresh agreement and
further had defaulted in payment of rents and had also sub-let the property,
Rl.T.O.P. came to be filed. The tenant has filed a detailed counter resisting
the eviction petition.
5.During the course of cross examination of P.W.1 the landlord, the
tenant produced a printout of Bank statement issued by M/s.HDFC Bank,
Mogappair East Branch. On the basis of this document, he wanted to
substantiate the payment of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the landlord. The
landlord admitted to the transfer of amounts. He deposed that the payment
was towards arrears of rent and not towards advance. The tenant wanted to
mark the bank statement as a document. It was opposed by the landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The ground on which it was opposed was that out of 283 pages of
Statement of Accounts, what had been produced before the Court was only
the 82nd page of the Accounts.
7.The learned Rent Controller acceded to this objections. However,
he granted liberty to the civil revision petitioner to mark the document
during the course of his examination.
8.Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Rent Controller refusing to
mark the document, this Civil Revision Petition is before this Court.
9.I heard Ms.P.Vanitha for the civil revision petitioner and
Mr.C.Iyyapparaj for the respondent.
10.Ms.P.Vanitha argues that when the document had been admitted
by the landlord, the Court ought to have permitted marking of the document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Per contra, Mr.C.Iyyapparaj states that no prejudice is caused to
the tenant since the Court has permitted the tenant to produce the document
during the course of his examination.
12.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
13.The Hon’ble Ms.Justice R.Mala in M.Kempaiah & anr. Vs.
Akkammal & anr, C.R.P.(PD).No.1116 of 2014 dated 20.01.2016 held
that even if a scrap of paper or a portion of the document is admitted during
the course of cross examination, then it is the duty of the Court to receive
the said document and mark it as one admitted during the course of cross
examination. A similar view was voiced by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Mohammed Aleemuddin Vs. Anney Vishwanath Rao, C.R.P.No.1355
of 2018, dated 02.04.2018.
14.Though as rightly found by the learned Judge, the document has
283 pages, the tenant is happy with marking of one page alone. May be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tenant feels the other pages of the document are irrelevant for the case. The
point remains it has not been presented during the course of chief
examination. The landlord was confronted with this document and he has
also admitted to the said transfer. Therefore, the Court ought to have
marked the document as the transaction has been admitted by the landlord.
15.For the mere fact that the document has been admitted does not
mean it is towards advance as pleaded by the tenant. It is always open to
the landlord to assert that this amount of Rs.30,00,000/- represents the
payment of arrears of rent and that the transfer was adjusted as against the
default. Similarly, it is open to the tenant to plead that there is no default
and this amount was towards additional advance. These are issues which
have to be gone into at the time of marshaling of evidence prior to the
pronouncement of judgment.
16.Suffice it to hold for the purpose of disposal of this revision that as
the landlord has admitted to the document, it should be received in evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as the proof of admission of transfer of funds. Relevancy of the document
will be decided by the Court at the time of final disposal.
17.With the above observation, this civil revision petition stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
07.01.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cse
To
The Rent Controller cum District Munsif,
Ambattur
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
