# US Owner Denied Rs 1 Lakh a Month From Chennai Flat Occupier By Saurabh Garg, founder·7 min read·Published 2026-09-29 **Short answer:** On 25 September 2026 the Madras High Court refused a California-resident owner interim use and occupation charges of Rs 1 lakh a month against the man living in his R.A. Puram, Chennai flat. The owner says his late father let the man in free in 2022 as a licensee. The occupier says the father agreed in 2018 to sell him the flat for Rs 7.60 crore and handed over possession pending registration. The court held that with the nature of the possession in dispute, and no proof of the market rate, the question of payment waits for the trial. # His Father Let a Man Into His Chennai Flat in 2022. From California, He Asked for Rs 1 Lakh a Month. The Madras High Court Said Not Yet. **An owner living in Foster City, California says his late father let a man occupy his 2,501 square foot flat in R.A. Puram, Chennai in 2022, rent free, on the promise that he would pay the society's maintenance. The occupier says the father had agreed in 2018 to sell him the flat for Rs 7.60 crore. The owner asked the Madras High Court to make the occupier pay Rs 1 lakh a month while the suit runs. On 25 September 2026 the court refused: who the occupier is, and what he owes, will be decided at trial.** ## The case The order is in A No. 429 of 2026 in C.S. No. 19 of 2026, *Sharat Bharat Varma v. G. Venkatramanan*, CNR HCMA013008542025, on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi passed it on 25 September 2026. It runs to seven pages. The cause title gives the applicant's present address in Foster City, California, USA, and his permanent address as Flat 1B, Kripa Apartments, R.A. Puram, Chennai. The occupier lives in Flat No. 5 of the same building. The application asked for use and occupation charges at Rs 1,00,000 a month from August 2025, pending disposal of the suit. ## The owner's case On the owner's account (paragraphs 2 and 3): - The flat is Flat 1B on the first floor, about 2,501 square feet, with a covered parking space. - In or about February 2022 his father, the late Bharat Varma, let the occupier stay in it. The occupier "was never a tenant" and paid no rent. He was a licensee or permissive occupier, on the understanding that he would pay maintenance to the Residents Association. - After the father died, the son asked the occupier to leave, by WhatsApp, email and in person. - A legal notice dated 4 July 2025 asked him to vacate by 31 July 2025 and claimed Rs 1,00,000 a month for use and occupation. He stayed. ## The occupier's case The occupier told a different story (paragraphs 4 to 7): - The building stands on family land that belonged to the owner's maternal grandfather, Dr. D. Krishna Varma, and was later developed into apartments. - The father held himself out as the person who took decisions on the family's properties. On 3 May 2018 he signed a sale agreement with the occupier for two flats, Flat No. 5 and Flat 1B. The price for Flat 1B was Rs 7.60 crore, and a token advance of Rs 1,00,000 was paid. - A registered sale deed of 24 November 2021 conveyed Flat No. 5 to him. The occupier says the father signed that deed "for himself and as the power agent of the plaintiff", with a Mrs. Lakshmi Narayanan also signing. - Flat 1B was to be registered once its tenant left. When it fell vacant, the father asked him to move in and pay the maintenance until registration. He says he spent about Rs 20,00,000 on the interiors. - He says he was always ready to pay the balance, and that COVID-19 and then the father's health held up the registration. These are the occupier's claims. The court made no finding on any of them. ## What the court held The owner's counsel argued that an unregistered agreement gives no right to stay, and that with no conveyance of Flat 1B the occupier had no right to remain once the permission ended (paragraph 8). The occupier's counsel answered that the whole application rests on calling him a permissive occupier, which he disputes, and that the owner cannot seek possession and market rent "as though the defendant had entered into possession merely as a gratuitous licensee" (paragraph 9). The court held, at paragraph 11, that interim use and occupation charges need the court to be satisfied, at least prima facie, that the plaintiff "has a presently enforceable right to receive such amount" and that the occupation is "prima facie wrongful or unauthorised". It added that the owner had not placed material to show that Rs 1,00,000 a month is the reasonable market value for this flat. At paragraph 12 it held that liability for use and occupation charges, and the amount, can be decided "along with the main suit, after adjudication of the rival claims concerning the nature of the defendant's possession". The application was dismissed (paragraph 13). The suit continues. ## What it means for an NRI owner The order turned on two points the owner could not show at this stage: that the occupier was only a licensee, and what the flat is worth per month. Against that stood a sale agreement and a registered sale deed for the flat upstairs, which the occupier says the father signed for himself and as the son's attorney. The court's record carries a family member managing flats on an owner's behalf, a permission given with nothing on paper that the order refers to, and a power of attorney used on one sale in the same building. That combination let the occupier present his possession as a buyer's, and it kept the monthly claim out of reach until trial. Our guide on [power of attorney from the USA to India](/guides/power-of-attorney-from-usa-to-india) covers what a power of attorney given from the United States can be used for. The comparison of [a property manager and a relative managing your flat](/guides/property-manager-vs-relative-managing-india-flat) covers the other half of this record. For removing an occupier, see [evicting a tenant as an NRI](/guides/how-to-evict-tenant-india-nri). The Delhi High Court case of a [caretaker who claimed an oral gift](/guides/nri-caretaker-oral-gift-no-title-delhi-high-court-sep-2026) is a related record. This is an interim order on one application. A dispute with an occupier belongs with a lawyer who can read the agreement, the deeds and the power of attorney. ## FAQ **Did the Madras High Court decide that the occupier can stay in the flat?** No. The order of 25 September 2026 only refused interim use and occupation charges. Possession and the occupier's claim under the 2018 agreement are for the trial in C.S. No. 19 of 2026. **Why did the court refuse the Rs 1 lakh a month?** Because the nature of the occupier's possession is disputed, the owner had not shown a "presently enforceable right" to the money or that the occupation was prima facie wrongful. He also placed no material to show Rs 1 lakh a month is the market value for the flat. **What does the occupier claim?** That the owner's father agreed on 3 May 2018 to sell him Flat 1B for Rs 7.60 crore, took a token advance of Rs 1 lakh, and asked him to take possession until registration. The court made no finding on it. **Where does the owner live?** The cause title gives his present address in Foster City, California, and his permanent address as the flat in R.A. Puram, Chennai. **Can the owner still recover use and occupation charges?** The order says liability and the amount can be considered along with the main suit, once the court decides the nature of the occupier's possession. *66 MG Road newsdesk* ## Sources - *Sharat Bharat Varma v. G. Venkatramanan*, A No. 429 of 2026 in C.S. No. 19 of 2026, CNR HCMA013008542025, Madras High Court, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi J, order dated 25 September 2026, 7 pages. Full text, carrying the mhc.tn.gov.in/judis footer, read on 29 September 2026: [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179239976/](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179239976/) - The occupier's account places the sale deed of Flat No. 5 on 24 November 2021 and his entry into Flat 1B after that flat fell vacant. The owner's account places the entry in or about February 2022. The order records both and decides neither. - Paragraph 11 reads that the plaintiff "has also not placed" material on market value; the order gives the prima facie test first and the market value point second. We report both as the order states them. About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about) Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day. [saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg) Information on this page is as on 2026-09-29. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position. ## Related guides - [How to Evict a Tenant in India as an NRI (When They Refuse to Vacate)](/guides/how-to-evict-tenant-india-nri) - [Power of Attorney from USA to India: The Complete Process](/guides/power-of-attorney-from-usa-to-india) - [Property Manager vs a Relative: Who Should Run Your India Flat?](/guides/property-manager-vs-relative-managing-india-flat) - [The Empty-Flat Problem: What an NRI Flat Left Vacant Costs](/guides/nri-vacant-property-empty-flat) - [A Caretaker Who Stayed Thirty Years Owns Nothing. The Delhi High Court Said So on 22 September.](/guides/nri-caretaker-oral-gift-no-title-delhi-high-court-sep-2026) ## Compare and cost - [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india) - [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india) - [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review) --- Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-chennai-flat-occupier-use-occupation-charges-refused-madras-high-court-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-chennai-flat-occupier-use-occupation-charges-refused-madras-high-court-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt