Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
D.H.Sarath K.Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2927 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Raghavachari, SC for Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Vijay Anand, AGP, Mr.P.S.Raman, AG assisted by Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, APP
The court reasserted the sanctity of contractual agreements in landlord-tenant relationships, emphasizing the need for adherence to original terms and resolving disputes equitably.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Tenancy - The petitioner sought for the delivery of possession of property leased to the Respondent Government, which unilaterally altered the rent agreement and delayed payment - The court reiterated that an agreement must be honored, and the unilaterally imposed changes and outstanding dues must be resolved - The decision emphasized the necessity of balancing public interest and contractual obligations. (Paras 1-28)
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - A landlord-tenant relationship necessitating clarity on original agreements and obligations is essential - State interests should not overshadow individual rights within contract disputes. (Paras 14 and 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for possession of leased property. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over rent payment and agreement terms. (Para 3 , 4 , 11) |
| 3. defendant argues for civil court jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 4. court recognizes landlord's contractual rights. (Para 14 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. court sets fixed rent and resolves arrears. (Para 26 , 28) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the property bearing No.42, Bharathi Nagar, Semmozhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-119 to the petitioners.
2. Heard both.
3. The case of the petitioners is as follows :
(i) The petitioners are the owners of the subject property. The second respondent approached them during October 2021 for taking over the subject property on rent in order to accommodate the office of the newly formed Tambaram Police Commissionerate. They were also informed that the tenancy in respect of the subject property was on temporary basis till the construction of own building by the Government.
(ii) The petitioners agreed to let out the subject property for a monthly rent of Rs.10,14,300/- + GST. A rental agreement dated 15.10.2021 was prepared for a period of 11 months starting from 01.1.2022 and it was handed over to the petitioners. Further, the possession of the subject property was handed over to the respondents on 26.12.2021. Thereafter, necessary arrangements were made for the inauguration of the Commissionerate by the Chief Minister on 01.1.2022 and it was inaugurated on that day.
(iii) However, rents were not paid to the petitioners till September 2022. All of a sudden, the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioners during August 2022 by unilaterally fixing the tentative monthly rent at Rs.6,08,438/- on the basis of the guidelines of the Public Works Department (PWD). According to the petitioners, this is in complete breach of the rental agreement entered into between the parties.
(iv) On receipt of the said communication, by letter dated08.9.2022 addressed to the second respondent, the petitioners informed about their unwillingness to accept the rates on the basis of the guidelines of the PWD. Having no other alternative, the petitioners sent another letter dated 19.9.2022 to the second respondent expressing their consent to receive the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.6,33,037/- + GST for the period from 01.1.2022 to 30.11.2022 instead of the original monthly rent agreed to the tune of Rs.10,14,300/- + GST and further requested the second respondent to hand over the subject property after expiry of the rental agreement. Pursuant to that, three cheques dated 31.12.2022 were issued for a total sum of Rs.82,16,824/- towards rent in respect of the subject property for the period from 01.1.2022 to 30.11.2022.
(v) Even thereafter, the second respondent did not act upon the letters sent by the petitioners and again three cheques were issued to the petitioners on 24.1.2024 for a total sum of Rs.37,34,920/- towards rent with applicable GST for the period from August 2023 to December 2023. The petitioners received the said amount under protest. It is under these circumstances, the above writ petition came to be filed before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to hand over vacant possession of the subject property.
4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit by questioning the maintainability of this writ petition since the parties were governed by a contract. He has also taken the following stand :
The monthly rent was fixed in respect of the subject property as per the guidelines of the PWD and the rental agreement was for a period of three years from 01.1.2022. The respondents could not be asked to shift the Commissionerate all of a sudden since it would have huge impact on the interest of the State since it deals with essential services. Even though there was a delay in paying the rent initially due to administrative procedure, the rents were regularly paid the
