A. Devaraj vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Accommodation Controller, Thanjavur, Marysam, Rachel Gurupatham

Ramanujam, J.—The appellant filed W.P.No. 1001 of 1983 claiming to be a tenant entitled to the protection under Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 and challenging a communication issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Accommodation Controller, Thanjavur, the first respondent herein, directing him to vacate the premises which was in his occupation. The point urged in the writ petition was that since the appellant herein has been inducted by the landlord as a tenant in the premises in question, he cannot be treated as a trespasser and therefore the impugned communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be legally sustained. However, the writ petition came to be dismissed by Sathiadev, J. on the ground that at the time when the appellant herein has been inducted into the suit property by the landlord, the building was under Government tenancy and therefore he cannot claim any tenancy in respect of the property so long as the Government tenancy continues. The learned Judge therefore held that the appellant herein had no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the communication received by him from the Revenue Divisional Officer. That order of the learned Judge is challenged in this writ appeal.

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. It is not in dispute that the building in question is under Government tenancy, and till today, the building has not been released to the landlord. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant was inducted into the building by the landlord, still he cannot claim any right-as a tenant as against the Government. As a matter of fact, on similar facts, Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was), in Ramkrishna v. The Secretary, Borne Dept., Government of Tamil Nadu and another 1973 TLNJ 201, has held that a person like the appellant herein is not an aggrieved person, for, he has been let into possession by the landlord in circumstances which violated the provisions of the Act. When his physical possession cannot be equated to legal possession either under the statute or in the eye of law, the appellant was rightly called upon to surrender possession by the Accommodation Controller. Since the appellant cannot claim any rights in the building in question, he cannot question the communication received from the Revenue Divisional Officer directing him to deliver possession of the property. The writ appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.