Madras High Court
T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty vs Administrator General Of Madras on 10 January, 2025
Author: S. S. Sundar
Bench: S. S. Sundar
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
OSA No. 221 of 2021
and
CMP No. 9310 of 2021
T.N.K.Govindaraju Chetty
And Company Pvt Ltd.,
Rep By It Executive Director Thiru. P.
Natarajan, No.48, Anna Salai,
Chennai 2.
Appellant
Vs
Administrator General Of Madras
And Official Trustee Of Tamil Nadu
Office of AG And OT,
1st Floor, City Civil Court Additional
Building, High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104. Respondent
Prayer : Original Side Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent of the High Court of Madras and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the
Original Side Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1956 to set aside the
judgement and order of this Court made in A.No. 3093 of 2020, dated
23.02.2021.
For Appellant: Mr. D. Balaraman
For Respondent: Mr. E.V.Chandru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.)
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2021 made in A.No.3092
of 2020 in OP.NO.109/1942 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the
present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the applicant.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
3. A vacant land measuring 4 grounds 1535.5 sq.ft., which is
under the administration of respondent [AG&OT] was taken on lease, by
the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, for a period of 5 years with
effect from 07.12.1972 on a monthly rent of just Rs.1,001/-. It is
admitted that thirty five years later is from 01.01.2006, the rent was fixed
at Rs.80,000/- per month for 10 years with an option to seek renewal for
two terms of five years. Thereafter, with effect from 01.01.2016, the rent
was enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- per month with a clause for enhancement
of rent by 5% every year. When the appellant sought for further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
extension, his request was turned down by communication dated
24.11.2020. The appellant filed an application in A.No.3093/2020 to
direct the respondent to renew the Lease Deed dated 01.03.2017 for the
balance period of five years. Taking note of guideline value for the
property, the respondent agreed for renewal if the appellant is willing to
pay a monthly rent of Rs.4,47,647/- with effect from 01.01.2021.
Learned Single Judge, without a reason for reducing the monthly rent,
recording the fact that the appellant was prompt in paying rent from
2006, allowed the application by directing the appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.3 lakhs as rent from 01.01.2021 with 5% escalation of rent every year
for getting renewal for a period of five years from 01.01.2021.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is using the land belonging to the trust estate only as a
parking area in connection with a cinema theatre run by the appellant.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the enhancement of the
existing rate is more than 150%, which is unfair. He submitted that the
lease amount was fixed in 1972 at Rs.1,001/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
5. It is not in dispute that the rent was fixed at Rs.80,000/- per
month even on 23.12.2005. Thereafter, with effect from 20.06.2016, the
rent was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per month, and from the year 2021, the
appellant is paying a sum of Rs.1,45,861/- per month towards rent and a
further sum of Rs.26,255/- towards GST. The respondent states that the
lease amount is due from 01.01.2021, and as on 10.01.2025, the total
arrears payable by the appellant is nearly Rs.80 lakhs even after
deducting payments so far made.
6. Despite showing lenience in giving time, this Court finds
that the attitude of the appellant is dubious. While agreeing to pay 25%
of the arrears, there is considerable delay in payment, even though time
was given to the appellant only by way of concession. The facts taken
into consideration by the learned Single Judge are only advantageous to
the appellant. Lease amount was fixed taking note of the guideline value
of the property. The market value for the property is far above the
amount that was fixed as guideline value.
7. The property that was leased out to the appellant is an extent
of 4 grounds and 1535 sq.ft, and it is situated in a commercially busy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
locality very near to Anna Salai, Chennai. Though it is contended by the
appellant that the property is not abutting Anna Salai (Mount Road), it is
very near and has the necessary access. Merely because the appellant is
enjoying the property as a parking area, this cannot be a factor to reduce
the rent to a minimum which does not correspond with the actual market
value of the nearby properties.
8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/ AG&OT is that as per the engineer's report, the rent is fixed
at Rs.7,34,943/- per month from 01.07.2024 and the arrears amount has
to be paid by the appellant/tenant with effect from 01.01.2021. Though
the rent was originally fixed in 2016, and this enhancement was only
with effect from 01.01.2021, the appellant is unable to agree to a
reasonable rent. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merits and hence,
liable to be dismissed.
9. Going by the facts, this Court finds that the attitude of the
tenant is not reasonable. This Court cannot show any indulgence. Only if
the appellant is agreeing to pay the lease amount as fixed by the learned
Single Judge with effect from 01.01.2021, it is open to the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
AG&OT to revise the rent based on the market value and other
considerations with effect from 01.01.2025. In case the appellant does
not agree to pay the rent as fixed by the learned Single Judge, the
respondent shall take immediate action for eviction. The AG&OT is
directed to report eviction within a period of two months, after giving
two weeks time to the appellant.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, no other factors or
grounds are raised by the appellant while arguing the appeal. This Court
finds no bonafide in the appeal; therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
11. Registry is directed to list the matter for reporting
compliance on 10.03.2025.
(S.S.SUNDAR J.) (P.DHANABAL J.)
10-01-2025
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
ak
To
Administrator General and Official Trustee
City Civil Court Additional Building,
High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA NO. 221 of 2021
S. S. SUNDAR., J.
and
P. DHANABAL., J.
ak
and
10.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
