C.Dineshkumar Rawal v. M.G.Gnanasekaran

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15/12/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD)Nos.19836 and 19837 of 2025

1. C.Dineshkumar Rawal,

2. Jasoda Devi Rashal,

3. Bhagyashree Silks Through its Proprietor, Dineshkumar Rawal ... Petitioners / respondents in both CRPs Vs

1. M.G.Gnanasekaran

2. M.G.Ramsekar

3. T.R.Hari Lakshmi

4. M.G.Dinesh

5. S.P.Pramila

6. M.J.Jayanthi

7. A.R.Manikandan (Formal Party) ... Respondents / Petitioners in both CRPs COMMON PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town dated 17-11-2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024 by allowing the Civil revision petition. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santhakumaresan, Advocate.

COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town dated 17-11-2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.09 of 2024 by allowing the Civil revision petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioners are tenants and the respondents herein are the owners. The respondents herein have filed RLTOP No.9 of 2024 before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. In that application, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.2 and 3 of 2025, to reopen and recall their side evidence as the same was closed on 28.10.2025. The said applications were dismissed by the trial Court, by stating that when the petitioner has forfeited their right of cross examination though the documents were filed as Exhibit A7 to A9 where there was no sufficient cause was shown to reopen the case of the petitioner. The trial Court has 2/4

taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in CRP(MD)No. 2532 of 2021 dated 05.08.2022 that for a relief of eviction sought under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act 2017, cross examination is ordinarily not necessary unless the case falls within the category (a)if the tenant denies tenancy or (b)The tenant setting up a tenancy which the landlord denies, which cannot be proved through written documents.

3. As the trial court has rightly examined the said provision and in the absence of any material placed before the trial court with regard to reopen and recall, the trial court has dismissed the same on merits, which needs no interference.

4. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15.12.2025 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn 3/4

N.SENTHILKUMAR,J pnn To

1. The Rent Controller, Madurai Town.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN and CMP(MD)Nos.19836 and 19837 of 2025 Date : 15/12/2025 4/4