Eviction ordered upon tenant's refusal to pay market rent following lease expiry.

The Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG & OT) of Tamil Nadu filed applications seeking a direction for the respondent/tenant to deliver vacant possession of a property located at No. 21, Harrington Road, Chetpet.

While the AG & OT claimed the property was already in their possession, it remained double-locked because the respondent’s movable goods were still inside.

The lease period for the premises had expired and was not renewed.

The AG & OT proposed a renewed monthly rent of Rs. 7,95,000/- based on market value, which the respondent refused as exorbitant.

1. Whether the court should order the eviction of the respondent and the delivery of vacant possession given the expiry of the lease and the parties' failure to agree on renewal terms.

2. Whether the AG & OT is entitled to use police force and assistance from revenue officials to secure vacant possession if the respondent fails to remove movable belongings.

The court applied the general principles of landlord-tenant law regarding the expiration of leasehold interests and the right of the owner/trustee to recover vacant possession when renewal negotiations fail.

The court specifically exercised its discretionary power to oversee properties managed by the Official Trustee to ensure the protection of the trust's interests, including the right to claim market-value rent and the authority to direct law enforcement (Police) and Revenue Officials to assist in the execution of court orders for eviction and removal of goods.

The court found that because the lease period had expired and the respondent expressly refused to pay the updated market rental value of Rs. 7,95,000/-, there was no legal basis for the respondent to continue occupying the premises.

Despite the respondent’s claim of physical possession, the court noted the property was already double-locked by the AG & OT.

To resolve the "complex situation," the court determined that eviction was the only viable legal remedy and reasoned that a structured timeline (four weeks) was necessary for the tenant to remove belongings, failing which the Official Trustee must have the legal authority to clear the premises using state machinery to prevent the property from remaining in a state of limbo.

The respondent was directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession by removing all movable belongings within four weeks.

The court held that if the respondent fails to cooperate, the AG & OT is empowered to remove the goods in the presence of Revenue Officials and, if necessary, with Police assistance, and any unclaimed goods may be dealt with by the AG & OT in accordance with the law.