A court cannot set aside a registered lease beyond the pleadings and relief sought.

The Official Trustee had leased a 1.24-acre property at No. 59, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai, to SPR Construction Pvt. Ltd., the highest bidder at a public auction, for a monthly rent of ₹62,10,000.

A lease deed was executed on 24 June 2025.

The lessee later alleged that the actual area available was 49,051 sq. ft., rather than the 54,014 sq. ft. stated in the deed, excluding a tea shop then occupied by another person.

It sought correction of the measurements and lease records, adjustment of rent, and vacant possession of the tea shop.

The Single Judge directed the Official Trustee to continue eviction proceedings and evict the appellant.

The appellant appealed, asserting that it had paid rent through August 2026 and the advance, and attributing the rent dispute to the measurement discrepancy.

The Official Trustee proposed a joint survey within two weeks, with any discrepancy to be adjusted; the appellant agreed to cooperate and continue paying rent under the lease.

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the registered lease deed when the applications sought relief concerning measurement discrepancies and related adjustments

2. Whether the measurement discrepancy should be resolved through a survey, with rent continuing to be paid under the lease pending adjustment

The Court proceeded under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, under which the appeals were brought.

It applied the principle that a court should not grant relief beyond the pleadings and relief sought; it also stated that an executed lease confers rights on the lessee and can be terminated only through a legally established procedure.

No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The applications concerned the alleged discrepancy in the property’s measurements, not the cancellation of the lease. By setting aside the lease in its entirety, the Single Judge went beyond the scope of the applications.

The Division Bench also noted that the lease had been executed and the lessee’s rights had accrued, so termination required a legally established procedure.

Since both parties agreed to a survey and the appellant undertook to continue paying rent under the lease, the Court directed that the discrepancy be addressed through that process.

It disposed of the appeals by directing the Official Trustee to conduct a survey in the presence of a surveyor and the appellant, and to resolve the measurement discrepancy within two weeks of receiving the order.

The appellant was directed to continue paying rent in accordance with the lease without default.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.