An undertaking to vacate provided to the Court by a tenant is binding; courts will reject extension requests lacking bona fide effort and will not settle disputed advance refund claims through summary proceedings when an alternative legal forum is available.

COMMON ORDER

CMP No.11277 of 2026 is filed seeking extension of time by four months [i.e.,] till 31.08.2026, from the date stipulated in the order dated 30.10.2025, for vacating and handing over vacant possession of the petition premises to the respondent/Landlord.

2. CMP No.11280 of 2026 is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to the petitioner at the time of handing over vacant possession of the premises.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking extension of time, the petitioner stated that while he was in the process of shifting his business, his granddaughter attained puberty and the related ceremonies and functions were scheduled to be conducted in the 1^st week of May 2026. It is further stated that the petitioner's brother passed away and that his nephew's engagement has been fixed in June, 2026, and that the entire responsibility of conducting the said functions rests upon him. According to the petitioner, the immediate relocation of his business from the petition premises, would adversely affect his income and consequently, cause hardship in conducting the aforesaid family functions. On the said grounds, extension of time by four months, i.e., till 31.08.2026, is sought.

4. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 23.10.2025, he undertook to vacate the petition premises and deliver the vacant possession to the respondent on or before 30.04.2026. Based on such undertaking, time was granted till 30.04.2026. This Court, by order dated 30.10.2025, had recorded the undertaking affidavit of the petitioner, wherein he unequivocally undertook to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent on or before 30.04.2026. The present petition has been filed on the ground that, owing to the ceremonies/functions scheduled during May and June, 2026, the petitioner is unable to vacate the premises and apprehends loss of income upon such re-

location.

5. Significantly, the petitioner has not disclosed any bona fides or sincere steps taken by him during the interregnum to vacate the premises. The averments in the affidavit, in the considered view of this Court, appear to be only an attempt to prolong the matter. This Court finds that no honest effort has been made by the petitioner to honour the undertaking furnished before this Court. Consequently, this Court finds no bonafides in the petition seeking extension of time. Accordingly, CMP No.11277 of 2026 stands dismissed. 6. Insofar as CMP.No.11280/2026 seeking refund of Rs.5,40,000/- is concerned, the petitioner contends that he is entitled for refund of the advance amount under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, and seeks a direction to the respondent to refund the said amount at the time of vacating and handing over possession of the premises.

7. This Court in its order dated 30.10.2025, had already considered the petitioner's claim for refund of advance amount and directed the respondent/Landlord to refund a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- at the time of vacating and handing over possession of the premises. The said figure was arrived at on the basis of the admitted monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings for recovery of the excess amount, if any, alleged to be due from the respondent/Landlord. Despite the same, the present petition has been filed seeking refund of the entire amount.

8. Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, merely contemplates refund of the advance amount after adjusting the rent and other charges due to the landlord. Since th