Dismissed¶49

G.Saroja Gajendran v. the Commissioner

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP/45110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 45110 of 2025; WMP No. 50252 of 2025; Justice V. Lakshminarayanan; decided 19-11-2025; Corporation of Tambaram; Jeeva Complex; National Highways acquisition; eminent domain; lessee rights; alternate accommodation not claimable as of right; refund of amount collected for unoccupied period; lease expiry 31.03.2027; representation dated 20.09.2025; writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek refund; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs; liberty granted to the petitioner to seek refund of the unoccupied period; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 50252 of 2025) closed. ¶49

G.Saroja Gajendran Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with no costs; liberty granted to the petitioner to seek refund of the unoccupied period; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 50252 of 2025) closed.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2025 by providing the petitioner (lessee of a shop in Jeeva Complex, whose lease runs till 31.03.2027 and whose premises is to be acquired for National Highways) with an alternative accommodation.

¶13

Court's answer

If the acquisition of the Jeeva Complex takes place before the expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2027, the respondent would be liable to refund the amount collected for the unoccupied period.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

A lessee cannot claim, as of right, an alternate accommodation when the leased premises is acquired by the appropriate Government in exercise of its power of eminent domain.

¶42

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner has no legal right other than the right to refund, the Court declined to give the direction sought in the writ petition, namely disposal of the representation dated 20.09.2025 by providing alternate accommodation.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madras High Court, V. Lakshminarayanan J., 19-11-2025) by the occupant/lessee of a fruits shop ('GS FRUITS') in Jeeva Complex belonging to the Corporation of Tambaram, which complex is to be acquired by the National Highways for connecting Tambaram town with Mudichur road. The petitioner's lease was valid till 31.03.2027 and he sought a direction to dispose of his representation dated 20.09.2025 for alternate accommodation. Held: the complex is acquired in exercise of eminent domain; if acquisition occurs before expiry of the lease on 31.03.2027 the respondent is liable only to refund amounts collected for the unoccupied period; a lessee cannot claim alternate accommodation as of right; having no legal right beyond refund, the petitioner was not entitled to the direction sought. Writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek refund of the unoccupied period; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

WP No. 45110 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

WP No. 45110 of 2025 and WMP No. 50252 of 2025

¶7

G.Saroja Gajendran

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Commissioner Corporation Of Tambaram, Office Of The Corporation, Zone 4, Sriperumbudur, Chennai.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

directing the respondent to dispose of representation dated 20.9.2025 by providing the petitioner with an alternative accommodation

¶14

For Petitioner(s): M/s.K.Gopi G.Janakiraman N.Karpagalakshmi

¶15

For Respondent(s): M/s.P.Srinivas, SC

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 45110 of 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is an occupant of a Jeeva Complex belonging to the

¶21

respondent. He is running a fruits shop under the name and style ''GS FRUITS''.

¶22

The petitioner states that he is paying the amounts due to the respondent without any default. The respondent had informed the petitioner to vacate and handover

¶23

the possession of the property as the complex, is the subject matter of acquisition by the National Highways.

¶24

The petitioner pleads that his lease rights is valid till 31.03.2027 and

¶25

therefore, even if the premise is acquired, he should be given with an alternate

¶26

site for the purpose of carrying on his livelihood. To that effect, he has made a

¶27

representation dated 20.09.2025 and since no order is passed, he is before this Court.

¶28

Mr. P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the sole respondent states

¶29

that the Jeeva Complex is to be acquired for connecting the Town of Tambaram

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 45110 of 2025

¶33

with Mudichur road. Hence, the National Highways had decided to acquire the

¶34

land. Therefore, the Commissioner was constrained to call upon the occupants

¶35

to vacate and hand over the possession. He states that the petitioner has no right

¶36

to continue any occupation, once the property is acquired. He also states that

¶37

there are no alternate sites available to accommodate persons like the petitioner.

¶38

I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a lessee of a shop in the Jeeva

¶40

Complex owned by the respondent. The complex itself is to be acquired by the

¶41

appropriate Government, in exercise of its power, of eminent domain. If the

¶42

acquisition takes place before the expiry of the lease period 31.03.2027, the respondent would be liable to refund the amount, which has been collected for unoccupied period. The lessee cannot claim as of a right to an alternate accommodation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pleads that all that he seeks for dispose of his representation dated 20.09.2025,

¶43

when he has no legal right other than the right to refund, I am not inclined to

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 45110 of 2025

¶47

give the said direction.

¶48