M.Ganesh v. V.Madhavi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 10064 OF 2026 M.Ganesh S/o. K.Munusamy, No.129, Mandhop Salai, TNHB, Mel-Iyanambakkam, Chennai-95.

And Carrying on Business at, Sri Ganesh Glass Plywoods, No.PCI, Plot No.2/PCI, Kambar Street, Block II, JJ Nagar West, Mogappair West, Chennai-37.

..Petitioner in both petitions Vs

1. V.Madhavi W/o. Madhava Naidu, Res. at No. 1858, I Block, 17th Street, Thiruvallur Kudiruppu, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

2. V.Divya Shree D/o. Madhava Naidu, Res. at No. 1858, I Block, 17th Street, Thiruvallur Kudiruppu, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

Rep. by her power agent, Mrs. V.Madhavi, W/o. Madhava Naidu, Res. at No. 1858, I Block, 17th Street, Thiruvallur Kudiruppu, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

3. V.Santhosh S/o. Madhava Naidu, Res. at No. 1858, I Block, 17th Street, Thiruvallur Kudiruppu, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

4. M.Thangaraj S/o. K.Munusamy, Res. at No.7, MGR Nagar, Padi Pudhu Nagar Main Road, Mogappair West, Chennai-37.

And Carrying on business at, Sri Ganesh Glass Plywoods, No.PC1, Plot No.2/PC1, Kambar Street, Block II, JJ NAgar West, Mogappair West, Chennai-37.

..Respondents in both petitions COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in MP Nos. 3 & 2 of 2025 in RLTOP No. 8 of 2024 dated 24.03.2026 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Rent Court at Ambattur.

In both CRPs :

For Petitioner(s):

MR.M.Rajkumar COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed in MP Nos. 3 & 2 of 2025 in RLTOP No. 8 of 2024 dated 24.03.2026 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Rent Court at Ambattur, the second respondent has preferred this revision.

2. Before the trial court, the tenant wants to reopen and to cross examine PW1. The learned Rent Controller found that now the case is posted for trial. The ratio laid down in Jata Shankar Vs Mrs. Champa Devi in CRP Nos.662 and 664 of 2023 and CMP Nos.5201 and 5203 of 2023 dated 27.03.2023 has been relied upon. The learned Tribunal observed that there is no tenancy agreement between the landlord and tenant. There is no establishment of the written tenancy agreement on his side. Hence, there is no necessity for cross examination of PW1 in this case, as sufficient opportunity was granted as per principles of natural justice. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondent has preferred this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that admittedly there is no tenancy agreement as per the New Act. Therefore, the Court below

had rightly not granted permission to cross examine by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which requires no interference.

4. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL To

1. The District Munsif Cum Rent Court at Ambattur.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

MTL AND CMP NO. 10064 OF 2026 20-04-2026