Allowed¶27

R. Saroja v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Feb 2026CRP/3309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; return of revision as time-barred; Article 227 civil revision petition; HR & CE Department; fair rent fixation by Executive Officer; delay of 741 days; mother's illness and demise; Apollo Hospital medical records; direction to number and dispose of revision; Madras High Court C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025; single judge S. Sounthar J.; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent (Commissioner, HR & CE Department) is directed to number the petitioner's revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law; no costs. ¶27

R. Saroja Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The first respondent (Commissioner, HR & CE Department) is directed to number the petitioner's revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law; no costs.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose revision was returned by the first respondent as presented beyond the period of limitation (the first respondent claiming no power to condone delay), should nevertheless be given an opportunity to pursue the revision, the 741-day delay being attributed to her mother's illness and death.

¶26

Court's answer

Having regard to the circumstances of the 741-day delay (the petitioner's mother's illness and death, evidenced by medical records), the Court held that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to pursue the revision before the first respondent.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed, and the first respondent is directed to number the revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law; no costs.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (under Article 227 of the Constitution) by R. Saroja ALLOWED (High Court of Judicature at Madras, S. Sounthar J., 06.02.2026 — C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025). Her revision to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department against the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Aatcheswarasamy Thirukovil's fair-rent fixation order dated 11.04.2023 (the prayer recites 11.04.2025) had been returned on 29.04.2025 (N.Dis.No.1488566/2025/D2) as presented beyond the period of limitation, the first respondent stating it had no power to condone delay. Filed during April 2025 with a delay of 741 days, the delay was explained by her mother's protracted illness and treatment at Apollo Hospital (medical records 07.01.2023 to December 2024) and her mother's expiry on 29.12.2024. The Court held that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to pursue the revision before the first respondent, and directed that the revision be numbered and disposed of in accordance with law; no costs. No precedents cited.

¶1

C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025

R.Saroja

…. Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai – 34.

¶11

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Aatcheswarasamy Thirukovil, Achirapakkam, Maduranthakan Taluk, …. Respondents Chengalpattu District.

¶12

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records in N.Dis.No.1488566/2025/D2 dated 29.04.2025 on the file of Commissioner HR & CE Department, Chennai – 34 and quash the same as illegal and direct the first respondent to condone the delay and adjudicate the case against the impugned order of fixation of fair rent dated 11.04.2025 on the file of Executive Officer Arulmigu Aatcheswarasamy Thirukovil, Acharapakkam, Chengalpattu District to secure the ends of justice.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvel, Government Advocate

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 29.04.2025 returning the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the second respondent fixing fair rent. The revision filed by the petitioner was returned by the first respondent on the ground that it was presented beyond the period of limitation and that the first respondent has no power to condone the delay.

¶19

The petitioner herein, in his affidavit dated 06.02.2026, has

¶20

stated that she is 67 years old and her mother, aged about 90 years, was affected with various ailments and was taking treatment at Apollo Hospital at the relevant point of time. Ultimately, her mother expired on 29.12.2024. In support of the said contention, the petitioner produced medical records pertaining to the period from 07.01.2023 to December 2024.

¶21

It is further stated that, due to death of her mother, the petitioner was mentally distressed and therefore, she could not take effective steps to pursue the legal proceedings. The order impugned in

¶22

the revision was passed by the second respondent on 11.04.2023, fixing the fair rent in respect of the property belonging to the second respondent 2/4

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.No.3309 of 2025

¶25

in occupation of the petitioner. The revision was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent only during April 2025, with a delay of 741 days. The said delay was sought to be explained by producing medical records relating to the treatment undergone by the petitioner's mother.

¶26