ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent. By the impugned order the respondents have refused to accept the request of the petitioners particularly the 3rd respondent on the ground that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and the 5th respondent. 2.The facts of the case is that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late Karuppiah who was the owner of a shop premises which was leased to the 5th respondent for running a TASMAC shop. The petitioners and the 4th respondent herein are the children/sibblings of late C.Karuppiah.

3.It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent herein had given no objection for running a TASMAC Shop in the property without the consent of the petitioners, though the petitioners are having equal rights over the property. It is submitted that shop in question was rented out to licensee right from 2009 onwards and that the 5th respondent had leased the property in the year 2018 and that the said lease came to an end on 31.10.2018 and thereafter the lease was not renewed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by exercising fraud on the petitioners, the 4th respondent allegedly gave no objection to the 5th respondent to continue with the lease for ending alcoholic beverage/liquor in the said shop. It is submitted that the 4th respondent had also forged the documents to transfer the EB connection in his name and that the TANGEDCO had later also cancelled the transfer made in the name of the 4th respondent back to the name of the petitioners' and the

4th respondent's father late C.Karupaiah.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender conditions mention that licensee should obtain a no objection from the owners and only if no objection is obtained from the owners, the licensee can be granted licence for running a TASMAC shop. It is submitted that in absence of no objection from the petitioners herein for the period after 30.10.2018, the question of giving licence to 5th respondent for running the TASMAC shop beyond the aforesaid date cannot be countenanced. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned communication of the 3rd respondent dated 16.09.2019 is liable to be quashed. He has also drawn attention to the decision of this Court rendered on 29.07.2019 in W.P.No.21733 of 2019 and in W.P.Nos.4996 & 7400 of 2018 vide order dated 11.04.2018 which was filed by the petitioners wherein they had sought for a larger relief.

6.It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the law settled by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in S.Ganesan Vs. Assistant Commissioner Excise, Collectorate, Chennai and another 2000 (I) CTC 193. In this connection, a reference was made to para 20,21,22 which reads as under:

20.A 'statutory tenant' by definition is one who has ceased to be a contractual tenant and whose right to retain possession is dependent upon several uncertain factors. A statutory tenant has not way of knowing as to when his landlord will seek to initiate eviction proceedings against him. It is open to landlord to do so, if he is otherwise entitled to claim possession under the Rent Control Act, to initial proceedings at a time of his choosing. The statutory tenant has no way of knowing as to whether a landlord who initiates such proceedings would ultimately succeed, and also as to the time at which a decree for eviction may be passes, nor can such a tenant foresee with certainty as to when an order for eviction, which may be obtained by a landlord may be executed against him. A statutory tenant may himself by his own acts of omission expose himself to being evicted by committing defaults, such as failing to pay the rent for a period longer than the one permissible under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A contractual ten