2025:MHC:2708 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ OSA No. 166 of 2025 AND OSA NO. 262 OF 2022

1. Swaminathan Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Administrator General And Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus, Chennai 104 Respondent(s)

OSA No. 262 of 2022

1. M.Swaminathan Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Administrative General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER To prefer this OSA against the order dated 06.03.2025 made in Application No.5989 of 2023 in O.P. No. 109 of 1942.

PRAYER To set aside/modify the Order passed by Learned Judge dated 05.08.2022 in Application No.180 of 2022 in O.P.No.109 of 1942 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

In both Appeals For Appellant(s): Mr.V.Devanathan For Respondent(s): Mr.M. R.Jothimanian

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present original side appeal in OSA.No.166 of 2025 has been instituted to assail the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in A.No.5989 of 2023 in OP.No.109 of 1942.

2. Application has been instituted questioning the validity of the proceedings issued by Administrative General and Official Trustee (hereinafter referred to as “AG & OT') dated 30.06.2022 fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2022 in respect of property in which applicant is the tenant. AG & OT had called upon appellant to pay rental arrears and administrative charges, and appellant disagreed to settle the said amount and filed an application. AG & OT filed a report stating that appellant occupied subject premises from the year 2010 pursuant to lease agreement, and periodical enhancement had not been made initially. However, fair rent was fixed vide Proceedings, dated 01.07.2022 and after assessment of market value, monthly rent Rs.21,000/- has been fixed with effect from 01.07.2022. Since appellant failed to pay the enhanced rent as well as rental arrears, this Court passed an order impugned to vacate the appellant/tenant and hand over physical possession of property to AG & OT. The said order passed by learned Single Judge came to be challenged in the present original side appeal. 3. Mr.Devanathan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that fair rent fixed by AG & OT is exorbitant and not in comensuration with the market rent prevailing in that locality. That apart, appellant is a small time business man and not in a position to pay such a huge rent of Rs.21,000/- per month. Therefore, some concession may be given by reducing monthly rent from Rs.21,000/- as fixed by AG & OT.

4. Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AG &

OT would oppose by stating that appellant is continuing as a tenant for more than 15 years. Periodical enhancement of rent was not made initially. All along appellant is continuing as a tenant by paying lesser monthly rent. Only in the year 2021, process to fix fair rent had been undertaken. Thereafter, AG & OT assessed market rent prevailing in that locality and fixed a sum of Rs.21,000/- as fair rent. Even the said amount has not been paid by appellant. Considering the fact that appellant is a defaulter in payment of rent as well as rental arrears, appeal is to be rejected.

5. During the course of adjudication of issues raised between parties, this Court could able to ascertain that lease deeds were not executed in a proper format initially. Even the period of lease has not been mentioned in lease rent signed between AG & OT and appellant in the present case. Fixing period of lease is a mandatory clause required and it was not followed previously.

6. However, learned counsel for AG & OT would submit that from 2019 onwards revised lease deed procedures have been adopted and other conditions are clearly stipulated in lease deeds. In this rega