Dismissed

D.Murugan v. The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Mar 2023A/3134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to set aside an order enhancing rent due to inability to pay, claiming subsequent government value reduction. The court held lease expired without renewal, mandated vacancy within a specific timeline, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Applications dismissed; Applicant directed to vacate premises by 30.06.2023 and pay arrears.

D.Murugan Vs The Administrator General and Official… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.Nos.3134 & 3135 of 2020

¶2

A.Nos.3134 & 3135 of 2020 in C.S.No.363 of 1912

¶3

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶4

A.No.3134 of 2020 has been filed to set aside the order dated 13.03.2020 made by the learned AG & OT, in which the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.56,000/- with effect from 01.03.2020. By way of A.No.3135 of 2020, the Applicant sought for stay of the order dated 13.03.2020.

¶5

Learned AG & OT has brought to the notice of this Court that the revision had taken place as early as in 2020 and till now, no steps were taken by the Applicant to enter into a fresh lease agreement, but, however, he continues to remain in the premises by paying the old rent.

¶6

According to the applicant, though the Government had earlier enhanced the guideline value, subsequently, it was reduced and that the present demand, namely, enhancement by 300% is not justified. Hence, it was prayed that the order dated 13.03.2020 needs interference by this Court.

¶7

It is seen that the old agreement already got expired and the Applicant has

¶8

not entered into a new agreement as demanded by the learned AG & OT. In the

¶9

Page 1 of 2

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

A.Nos.3134 & 3135 of 2020

¶12

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶13

ar absence of any consensus between the parties, it is the mandatory duty of the applicant to vacate the premises, as the applicant was not in a position to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.56,000/-per month. The request of the applicant to grant one year time to vacate the premises cannot be acceded to and he has to hand over the vacant possession of the premises on or before 30.06.2023 on payment of arrears of rent as per the revised rent.

¶14

In the result, both these applications are dismissed as devoid of merits .

29.03.2023

To:

The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Madras.

¶19

A.Nos.3134 & 3135 of 2020 in C.S.No.363 of 1912

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.Murugan v. The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Murugan v. The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.Rajendran Vs Official Trustees of Tamilnadu

Saravana Sundari @ P. Vanthana Vs Other Departments (Tn)

Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu Vs M/s. Sarkaria Brothers

R.Murugesan Vs Administrative General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu

G.Kannan Vs The Official Trustee

A.Navaneethakrishnan Vs Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu