Interpretation of statutes-To be construed as per the intention of statutes.

1. P.Sathasivam, J.: The writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.6.1996 allowing the Writ Petition No.16164 of 1988.

2. The third respondent in the said writ petition is the appellant. For the convenience, we shall refer the parties as described in W.P.No.16164 of 1988.

3. The first respondent herein- writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1656, Revenue Department, dated 17.12.1985, filed W.P.No.16164 of 1988 on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

He purchased the property bearing T.S.No.4/1, Virahanur Village in 1970. At the time of purchase, one Chockalingam Pillai- third respondent therein and appellant in the present appeal was a tenant in the property. The said Chockalingam Pillai was carrying on rice mill business. He caused a legal notice for eviction from the premises. The petitioner also filed suit in O.S.No.30 of 1981 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai. The said Chockalingam Pillai resisted the suit, contending that he had put up superstructure and he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (in short “the Act”). He also filed O.P.No.10 of 1981 before the District Munsif Court. Both the suit and O.P. were tried together and by a common order, the learned District Munsif, decreed the suit and dismissed the O.P., filed by Chockalingam Pillai. Appeals were preferred in A.S.No.132 of 1984 and C.M.A.No.30 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Madurai. The appeals were also dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Chockalingam Pillai preferred second appeal in S.A.No.96 of 1986 and C.R.P.No.235 of 1986 on the file of this Court. By that time, the Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu had published impugned G.O.No.1656, Revenue Department, dated 17.12.1985, extending the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to Virahanur Village with effect from the date of notification in the gazette. This Court, by order dated 9.11.1988, has remanded the matter to the District Munsif, Madurai to consider the matter in the light of the above, Government Order. The said Government Order is untenable and mala fide. The Act was extended to Virahanur Village, whereas it has not been extended to another village, namely Travathanallur village, which lies in between Madurai City and Virahanur Village. It is arbitrary, irrational and illogical to extend the Act to one Village which is farther, omitting one which is nearer to City of Madurai. The respondents have not properly taken into consideration all the above mentioned criteria and have arbitrarily extended the Act to Virahanur.

4. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the writ petitioner. It is stated that in Virahanur Village many people have taken the vacant site on lease basis and constructed buildings, installed machinery and running several industries. If these lessees are got evicted from the said lease hold lands, the lessees have to demolish the costly buildings and handover the vacant sites to the owners, which may result in the running of several businessmen and industrialists. So, these people thought that the extension of the act as amended from time to time to Virahanur village will protect the interest of all the lessees in Virahanur village. Therefore, one Chockalingam Pillai, President of Village Welfare Association of Virahanur has sent a petition to the Government in 1981 itself requesting the Government to extend the said Act to Virahanur Village. The Government have passed the impugned order, extending the provisions of the Act to Virahanur Village. This order safeguards the interest of lessees. In view of the Government decision extending the said Act to Virahanur village, the writ petitioner was not able to evict the tenants. It is stated that the State Government may by a notification extend the said Act to a