C O M M O N O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner had taken the petition mentioned property on lease from the fifth respondent trust. The lease was regularly renewed and it was valid up to 31.03.2019. Thereafter, the fifth respondent refused to renew the lease. However, the petitioner is very much in possession of the property in question. Since the petitioner faced threat of dispossession from the lessor, the petitioner had filed O.S. No.69 of 2018 before the jurisdictional civil Court. The fifth respondent is also said to have given a complaint before the concerned authorities.

3. In the site in question, the petitioner was running a fire crackers shop. She was given LE5 license also. Following the complaint lodged by the lessor, the license came to be cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District on 30.07.2019. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner Annalakshmi filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The appeal was also dismissed on 02.11.2020. The order dismissing the writ petitioner's appeal has been put to challenge in W.P.(MD)

No.16141 of 2020. In the other writ petition, namely, W.P. (MD)No.14999 of 2020, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, declining to renew the writ petitioner's license.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition.

5. His core argument is that the petitioner is very much in possession of the property in question on which she is running the business. It may be true that the landlord had refused to extend the lease. But then, the petitioner is a tenant holding over. The petitioner is not a tenant at sufferance. The petitioner's counsel wanted this Court to bear in mind the distinction in this regard.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.9918 of 2011(NAND RAM (D) TH. LRS. VS JAGDISH PRASAD(D)TH.LRS). The learned counsel drew my attention to what is set out in paragraph No.44 of the order which reads as follows:-

“44. To sum up the legal position or status of a lessee whose lease has expired and whose continuance is not assented to by the landlord, is that of a tenant at sufferance. If, however, the holding over has been assented to in any manner, then it becomes that of a tenant from month-to-month. Similar, i.e. from month- to- month, is the status of a lessee who comes into possession tinder a lease for a period exceeding one year but unregistered. He holds it not as a lessee for a fixed term, but as one from month-to-month or year-to-year depending on the purpose of the lease. If upon a tenant from month-to-month (or year-to-year) and in either of the aforesaid two contingencies, a notice to quit is served, then on the expiry of the period, his status becomes of a tenant at sufferance. Waiver of that notice, or assent in any form to continuation restores to him his status as a tenant from month-to-month, but capable, of once again being terminated with the expiry of any ensuing tenancy month.”

6. The learned counsel wanted to challenge the impugned orders passed by the authorities, particularly on the ground that they have completely misconstrued the nature of possession of the writ petitioner over the petition mentioned property. He wanted this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petitions.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned in these writ petitions do not call for any interference.

8. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

9. Before considering the rival contentions, i