Dismissed

A.G.Sridaran v. the Rent Authority Officer

Madras HC13 Sept 2023WP/25663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a tenancy registration application. The Court held that the petitioner should approach the newly constituted Rent Authority with a fresh application and seek condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to approach newly constituted Rent Authority with fresh application and condonation of delay within 15 days.

A.G.Sridaran Vs the Rent Authority Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.25663 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

W.P.No.25663 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.25078 of 2023

A.G.Sridaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Rent Authority Officer, The Rent Authority, 4th Floor, Singaravelar Maligai, Collectorate Complex, No.62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶11

2.Parsvatech Workspaces Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Rushabh Shah, Unit No.201, 2nd Floor, Marathon (Mafatlal) Chambers, Futurex IT Park, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel (E), Mumbai-400 013. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Application No.TN-242023010509356, purportedly dated 31.05.2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to provide a tenancy registration number for Application No.TN242023010509356, submitted to its file on 05.01.2023.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.25663 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pranesh for P.B.Ramanujam Associates For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader for R1

¶17

ORDER

¶18

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

2.The petitioner owns a certain building and has entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent herein on 05.02.2021. However, the petitioner only applied for its registration under Section 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 05.01.2023. This was rejected by the Rent Authority, the first respondent herein on 31.05.2023. This is well beyond the 90 days time period stipulated under Rule 4 (3) read with Section 4 (3) of the Act. It was rejected inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay in seeking registration of the rental agreement under

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.25663 of 2023

¶23

Section 4 (3) of the Act.

¶24

3.Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent, and made a statement that the petitioner ought to have moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guindy, who is constituted as the Rent Authority vis-a-vis the property of the petitioner in Ekattuthangal. He submitted that from and after May 2023, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guindy has been constituted as the Rent Authority for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act.

¶25

4.Relying on the Judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s.Suguna Vilasa Sabha vs. Rajesh Mootha and Ors ., [(2022) SCC OnLine Mad 4711 : (2023) AIR CC 100], the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's application is bad in law and the Rent Authority should have condoned the delay.

¶26

5.This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but only directs him to approach the newly constituted Rent Authority (Revenue Divisional Officer, Guindy) with a fresh online application

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.25663 of 2023

¶30

along with an application for condonation of delay in filing his application under

¶31

Section 4 (3) of the Act within a period of fifteen (15) days from today.

¶32

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly with the above direction. No

¶33

Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

13.09.2023

¶35

Anu Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : yes/no

¶36

Note to office:Issue order copy on 14.09.2023

¶37

¶38

1.The Rent Authority Officer, The Rent Authority, 4th Floor, Singaravelar Maligai, Collectorate Complex, No.62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guindy.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

W.P.No.25663 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

Anu

W.P.No.25663 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.25078 of 2023

¶46

13.09.2023

¶47

5/5

¶48

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

A.G.Sridaran v. the Rent Authority Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.G.Sridaran v. the Rent Authority Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Arunrajan Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Manoj Lingam Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Enkay Textile Vs the Chairman

Dr. R.Baskaran ., Phd., I.A.S (Rtd) Vs the Principal Secretary

Jr Medical College and Hospital, Vs Union of India

Murugesan Vs the District Collector