A rent-defaulting tenant has no automatic right to possession or fresh lease without participating in open re-letting.

The first respondent, Madurai Thennaga Vaniyar Sangam, was a tenant under the appellant, The Puttu Urchava Kattalai, in a Kalyana Mandapam situated at Puttu Thoppu Main Road, Madurai.

The HR&CE authorities determined the fair rent, but the tenant did not pay it and accumulated arrears of approximately ₹38 lakhs.

While the tenant’s challenge to the fair-rent determination was pending, the appellant took possession of the premises and affixed a lock and seal on 18.03.2025 after following the stated procedure.

The tenant thereafter filed W.P.(MD) No.2180 of 2026 seeking removal of the lock and seal, restoration of possession, and execution of a fresh lease in reliance on the Joint Commissioner’s order dated 16.08.2013 and the Supreme Court’s order dated 25.08.2025 in SLP (Civil) No.22672 of 2025.

The learned Single Judge issued directions in favour of the tenant, leading to the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

1. Whether the tenant was entitled, as a matter of right, to restoration of possession of the Kalyana Mandapam and removal of the lock and seal despite substantial arrears of rent?

2. Whether the Joint Commissioner’s observation regarding the possibility of entering into a fresh lease, read with the Supreme Court’s order dated 25.08.2025, conferred on the tenant an automatic right to continuation or renewal of the lease?

3. Whether the learned Single Judge’s directions granting relief to the tenant were legally sustainable?

A defaulting tenant cannot claim automatic continuation of a lease or restoration of possession merely because an administrative order permits consideration of a future lease.

A statement that a tenant may be considered for a fresh lease does not create an enforceable right to renewal; the tenant must compete with other prospective lessees in accordance with the applicable leasing process.

The Supreme Court’s order in SLP (Civil) No.22672 of 2025 only permitted the tenant to avail itself of any benefit available under the operative orders and did not direct automatic continuation of the tenancy.

The appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Court held that the tenant’s failure to pay the determined fair rent, resulting in arrears of approximately ₹38 lakhs, materially disentitled it from seeking restoration of possession as a matter of right.

The appellant had taken possession and sealed the premises after following the stated procedure.

The Joint Commissioner’s reference to a possible fresh lease was only an invitation to consideration and did not require the appellant to treat the tenant as an existing lessee.

Likewise, the Supreme Court had merely preserved the tenant’s opportunity to avail itself of any benefit under the existing orders; it had not ordered renewal or restoration of possession.

Since the tenant had not participated in any process for prospective leasing, its attempt to obtain possession through a writ of mandamus was impermissible.

The premises had subsequently been made available for use by the temple for marriages, enabling the revenue to go directly to the temple.

It held that the first respondent had no automatic right to restoration of possession, removal of the lock and seal, or execution of a fresh lease, particularly while substantial rent arrears remained unpaid.

The tenant could only participate in any lawful future process for selection of a lessee, along with other prospective applicants.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.