R.Subramaniam v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 16.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY R.Subramaniam ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector General Of Registration No. 100 Santhome High Road Foreshore Estate Chennai 28
2. The District Registrar Tiruppur
3. The Joint Sub Registrar, Ii Joint Ii Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur
4. The Commissioner The Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai
5. The Arulmighu Visveswara Swamy And Veeraraghava Perumal Thiru Koil, Rep. By Its Trustee, Perumal Koil Veedhi, Tiruppur ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to 1/7
register the lease extension deed or any other deeds with regarding to SF No. 248/1 owned by the petitioner in accordance with order passed in WP no. 3466 of 2015 on the file of this Honble high court For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Krishnaraj For Respondent : Mr.Abishek Murthy, GA for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP for R4&R5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to register the lease extension deed or any other deeds with regarding to SF No. 248/1 owned by the petitioner in accordance with order passed in WP.No. 3466 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
2. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 4 & 5.
2/7
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the petitioner had purchased the subject property on 24.01.1994. Thereafter, they made an attempt leased out the property to Indian Bank, however, the respondent had refused to register the lease deed by citing the reason that the petitioner have to obtain No Objection Certification from the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP.No.3466 of 2015, wherein this Court directed the respondent to register the lease deed without insisting upon any no objection certificate from any authority. Accordingly, they registered the lease deed. Now, the petitioner is intend to extend the said lease deed, however, the same was orally refused by the respondent by stating the very same reason. Hence, this petition.
5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, after taking instructions, would submit that now, the lease 3/7
deed was not at all presented before the respondent and hence, the question of refusal would not come into picture. If the said deed for extension of lease is presented before the respondent, the same will be taken into consideration. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it was submitted by the petitioner that he had received an oral instruction from the respondent with regard to the refusal of registration and hence, it is clear that the petitioner had not presented the lease extension deed before the respondent.
8. Earlier in WP.No.3466 of 2015, this Court directed the respondent to register the lease deed vide order dated 11.02.2015. Now, the subject matter is pertaining to the extension of very same lease deed 4/7
and the said extension would be considered by the respondent, once if the lease extension deed is presented either through online or physically before them by the petitioner for the purpose of registration.
9. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to present the lease extension deed before the 3rd respondent. In such case, the 3rd respondent is directed to register the same, after taking into consideration of the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by this Court in WP.No.3466 of 2015, as expeditiously as possible.
10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
16.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa 5/7
To
1. The Inspector General Of Registration No. 100 Santhome High Road Foreshore Estate Chennai 28
2. The District Registrar Tiruppur
3. The Joint Sub Registrar, Ii Joint Ii Sub Registrar Office, Tiruppur
4. The Commissioner The Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai
5. The Arulmighu Visveswara Swamy And Veeraraghava Perumal Thiru Koil, Rep. By Its Trustee, Perumal Koil Veedhi, Tiruppur 6/7
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 16.09.2025 7/7