Madras High Court
S.Mohammed Abdullah vs K.Rajagopal on 26 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.592 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3220 of 2025
S.Mohammed Abdullah ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
K.Rajagopal ...Respondent/Respondent/Applicant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
09.12.2024 in IA.No.1/2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.22/2024 on the file of the Rent
Court (Principal District Munsif Court), Tiruchirappalli, and allow the CRP
throughout.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Savarimuthu
for M/s.Father Savarimuthu
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
ORDER
The respondent/tenant in R.L.T.O.P.No.22 of 2024, on the file of the
Rent Court(Principal District Munsif Court), Tiruchirappalli, has filed the
present revision petition, challenging the dismissal of his application seeking a
direction to the landlord to present himself as witness for the purpose of cross
examination.
2.A perusal of the records reveal that the respondent herein as landlord
has filed the above said application for evicting the tenant on the ground that
leave and license period has expired and the tenant has not come forward to
enter into a fresh agreement. The landlord has further alleged that the tenant has
caused damages to the building.
3.The tenant has filed counter contending that when the agreement is a
leave and license agreement, and Clause No.9, has specially pointed out that no
tenancy has been created under the agreement, the Rent Control Court does not
have any jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. It is further contended by
the tenant that he has not caused any damages to the building and he has
disputed the allegations relating to the requirement of the landlord for his own
use and and occupation.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
4.The landlord had filed his proof affidavit on 04.10.2024, and he has
marked the documents on his side on the same day. Without permitting the
tenant to cross examine the landlord, the Court has posted the case to
17.10.2024, for the tenant to let in evidence on his side. In such circumstances,
the tenant had filed I.A.No.1 of 2024, under Section 34(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlord and Tenants Act,
2017, seeking a direction as against the landlord to appear as witness, so that
the tenant could cross examine him. This application came to be dismissed by
the Rent Controller on the ground that whether it is a lease or not, is a legal
issue and it can be decided based upon the documents filed on either side. In
such circumstances, cross examination of the landlord is not necessary.
Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.
5.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,
he has entered into possession of this property as a lessee in the year 2006.
However, when the present agreement was entered into in the year 2013, a
conscious decision was taken by the landlord to treat the transaction as a leave
and license agreement. In such circumstances, unless the mind of the landlord is
been brought before the Court to the effect that it is only a license agreement
and not a lease agreement, it would difficult to establish before the Court that it
is a only license agreement and not a lease agreement.
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
6.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,
the ground of own use and occupation have been deleted from the Act by way
of amendment in the year 2022, and therefore, such a ground is not available to
the landlord. It is further contended that the landlord has alleged that the tenant
has caused damages to the building. When factual allegations are being made as
against the tenant, to the said effect also, the cross examination is required.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 5939,
wherein this Court has held that cross examination of the landlord would be
necessary, in a case, where the tenant has not entered into a fresh agreement
with the landlord, if he wants to establish the reasons for not entering into a
fresh agreement.
8.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein had
contended that the landlord is always ready to subject himself for cross
examination provided he is sought to be cross examined in the main case. Only
because of the fact that I.A. was filed by the tenant for a direction to present the
landlord for cross examination, the said application was resisted by the
landlord.
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
10.The present application has been filed by the tenant under Section
34(2) of the Act, seeking a direction to the landlord to appear as witness so that
he could be cross examined. It could be seen from the records that as soon as
the landlord had filed his proof affidavit and marked the documents, the Rent
Controller has proceeded to post the case for evidence on the side of the tenant.
Therefore, it is clear that Rent Controller had not permitted the tenant to cross
examine the landlord which has prompted him to file the present application.
11.A perusal of the agreement between the parties raises some doubts
whether it is a lease agreement or a leave and license agreement. According to
the tenant, he is under a lease agreement from the year 2006 onwards and the
landlord has taken a conscious decision to convert the lease agreement into a
leave and license agreement.
12.It is further contented on the side of the tenant that such an agreement
has not been registered before the authorities concerned. However, the learned
Counsel appearing for the landlord has contended that such an agreement has
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
already been registered. In such circumstances, it is all the more necessary that
the landlord is subjected for cross examination to find out what prompted him to
prepare a leave and license agreement.
13.In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the
revision petition is hereby set aside and the revision petition stands allowed.
14.It is made clear that the cross examination shall be restricted to the
character of the possession of the property as well as with regard to the damages
caused to the building.
15.With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
closed.
26.03.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
RJR
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
To
The learned Principal District Munsif,
Rent Court, Tiruchirappalli.
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.592 of 2025
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:40:37 am )
