Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
D.Ranjithsingh Maduranayagam – Appellant
Versus
T.N.Santhanakrishnan – Respondent
CRP No.4948 of 2025 | CMP No.25004 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.L.Ramesh
For the Respondents: Mr.M.V.Seshachari

Court rules on tenant obligations under lease agreements, emphasizing adherence to undertaking terms.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, aiming to challenge a lower court's order of eviction (para 1). Key facts include the petitioner agreeing to vacate premises by 30.09.2026 and adhering to specified business hours (para 2-3). The court found sufficient assurance in the petitioner's undertaking (para 4). The primary issue was whether to uphold the eviction order based on compliance assurances and tenant obligations (para 5). The court emphasized the need for adhering to the undertaking as a guiding principle in its decision (para 5). Ultimately, the revision petition is dismissed, reaffirming tenant obligations to the landlord (final conclusion).

Table of Content
1. petitioner's assurance to vacate is critical for eviction proceedings. (Para 1)
2. petitioner undertakes specific obligations regarding business operations and timeline. (Para 2)

ORDER

Pursuant to the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit of undertaking of the petitioner/tenant, in and where by, the petitioner undertakes to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2026 and agrees to pay the rent to the respondent till he vacates and deliver the vacant possession of the property.

2. The petitioner has also undertaken that the petitioner would only carry on fast food business in the petition premises from morning 8.00 a.m till 10.30 p.m and the business would not be carried on beyond 10.30.p.m on all the days.

3. Recording the above undertakings, the petitioner is granted till

30.09.2026 to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent. Until the petitioner/tenant vacates, he is directed to pay the rent and also not induct any third parties into possession.

4. The affidavit of undertaking shall form part of the records.

5. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP.B. Balaji, JD.Ranjithsingh Maduranayagam – AppellantVersusT.N.Santhanakrishnan – RespondentCRP No.4948 of 2025 | CMP No.25004 of 2025

Court rules on tenant obligations under lease agreements, emphasizing adherence to undertaking terms.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
D.Ranjithsingh Maduranayagam – Appellant
Versus
T.N.Santhanakrishnan – Respondent
CRP No.4948 of 2025 | CMP No.25004 of 2025