After termination of tenancy, a tenant becomes an encroacher under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, and concurrent findings of eviction are not interfered with under Article 226 unless perverse or in violation of natural justice.

ORDER

The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the 1^st respondent in Revision Petition No.21 of 2025, confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent in R.P.No.541 of 2024 D2, dated 16.04.2025, who in turn had confirmed the order of the 3^rd respondent in M.P.No.40 of 2023 dated 10.10.2024 and the consequential order of the 5^th respondent, bearing Na.Ka.No.ACO14/311-1/2024-C1 dated 17.10.2025, with a consequential direction to the 4^th respondent to renew the lease of the building S.No.408/3 (New S.No.603/1 to the extent of Ac.0.50 cents in favour of the petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 3 and 5 and Mr.M.Manivasagam, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been a tenant admittedly under the 4^th respondent right from 2003 and has been paying rents regularly, besides expending substantial expenses towards the maintenance and development of the tenanted property itself. Despite the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 4^th respondent has issued notices as early as in December 2022 and February 2023, alleging default committed by the petitioner in payment of rents and also requiring the premises for their own use and occupation. He would further submit that the 4^th respondent is only intending to let out the property to third parties for higher rent and the request for own use is malafide and not genuine.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that despite diligent steps taken by the petitioner to pay the rents, the 4^th respondent has mischievously, in order to gain undue advantage, has returned the payments, which has led to the eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959. He would further submit that the 4^th respondent owns two other guest houses, the very existence of which has been suppressed, clearly making the claim for own use and occupation malafide. He would further submit that the petitioner was also denied a fair hearing and there has been violation of principles of natural justice. He would therefore state that when the action initiated by the 4^th respondent was clearly motivated and malafide and the petitioner has attempted to pay rents payable as well, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's request for renewal of lease. He would therefore pray for the writ petition being allowed.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the 4^th respondent maintains and administers several temples and one such temple is Thirukadaiyur Sri Abhirami Ammai Sametha Sri Amirthakadeshwarar Temple. He would further submit that the petitioner has been a chronic defaulter in payment of rents ever since inception of tenancy and it is absolutely false and incorrect to allege that he was regular and prompt in payment of rents. Considering his conduct, the lease was also not renewed beyond 31.03.2022 and he was directed to vacate and hand over possession and a lawyer's notice was also issued on 21.12.2022. Despite the said notice, the petitioner did not come forward to pay the arrears of rent and instead, by request letter dated 30.12.2023, sought for renewal of lease. The said request was rejected by reply dated 27.02.2023, calling upon the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises.

6.The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would further submit that since the petitioner did not comply with the demand for handing over possession, proceedings were initiated under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent that the petitioner paid the entire arrears in one lumpsum by payment of deposit of Rs.6,55,000/- only in pursuance of direction issued in WP.No.3974 of 2024 and this clearly exposes the falsity in the cl