OSA/138/2026 of SPR Construction Pvt.Ltd Vs Administrator General on 5 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) A challenge has been made to the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court in A.Nos.6163, 6164 and 6165 of 2025.

2. The appellant has filed the above applications seeking a direction to the respondent to provide the correct measurements of the leased property and for making corresponding correction in the lease deed and other records and to execute fresh deeds and charge rent from the date of execution of the fresh lease deed, to direct the respondent not to demand or collect monthly lease rent from the applicant till the correction in the measurement is made and to evict the shop occupant in the leased premises and hand over vacant possession to the appellant.

3. Following are the brief facts of the case:

3.1. A vacant land at No.59, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai-7 measuring an extent of 1.24 acres is under the control of Trust Estate of Nurses Association and was purchased by the Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu on 25.07.1934. The said property was sought to be leased out with the permission of the Court and a public auction was conducted on 12.05.2025 by the concerned Judge incharge of the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu and the appellant/applicant being the highest bidder quoting Rs.62,10,000/- per month as the bid amount, a lease deed was executed in favour of the appellant/applicant on 24.06.2025. It is to be noted that the appellant/applicant has also taken possession of the entire property except the tea shop located, which was in occupation of another person.

4. When the matter stood thus, the above three applications were filed by the appellants pointing out discrepancies in the measurements. According to the appellants, though the lease deed had been executed for the entire extent of 1.24 acres, equivalent to 54,014 sq.ft, the actual extent is only 49,051 sq.ft excluding the tea shop. Therefore, they sought the aforesaid directions in the original applications.

5. However, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the monthly lease amount had not been paid for a period of 11 months and that the trust properties could not be leased out for such a long period of 30 years, has passed the impugned order directing the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu to continue the eviction proceedings initiated pursuant to the issuance of notice and evict the appellant immediately. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has paid the lease amount till August, 2026, amounting to Rs.8,69,40,000/- apart from the advance amount of Rs.6,21,00,000/-. It is submitted that as there is a discrepancy in the actual measurement, the rent could not be paid.

7. The learned counsel representing the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu submits that a sum of Rs.17,000/- remains to be paid towards rent. He would further submit that the property will be measured in the presence of Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu along with a surveyor in the presence of appellant so that the entire issue could be sorted out within two weeks. If there is any discrepancy in the measurement, the extent will be adjusted after survey. It is also stated that the tea shop in the property has already been vacated.

8. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has no difficulty in accepting the suggestion put forth by the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu and that they will cooperate with Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu for surveying the property and they will continue to pay the rent as per the lease deed and after the survey, if adjustments to be made, the same will be sorted out.

9. In view of the above submission, now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the learned single Judge was right in going beyond the pleadings and relief sought for and setting aside the registered lease deed.

10. The appellants have filed the above applications seeking specific directions to rectify a discrepancy regarding the property measurements noted in the lease deed, but the learned Single Judge stating that giving the property on lease for such a long period would cause prejudice to the interest of the trust properties, set aside the lease deed itself by going beyond the scope of applications. The transfer has already been effected and the right has already been accrued to the lessee to enjoy the property on such transfer. The lease can only be terminated through a legally established procedure. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the lease deed in its entirety.

11. In such view of the matter, all these appeals are disposed of directing the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu to conduct survey in the presence of surveyor and the appellant and set right discrepancy in the measurement of the immovable property within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the appellant shall continue to pay the rents as per the terms of the lease deed without any default. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa To The Administrator General Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, First Floor, City Civil Court Buidings, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. gpa OSA Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 2026 CMP Nos. 19938, 19954, 19956, 19960 and 19962 of 2026 05-10-2026