Tenants lack locus to challenge demolition of unauthorised, dangerous buildings under planning laws.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent(s):Mr. A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader for R1 Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 Mr.S.Prabakaran Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Saravana Kumar for R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the Government rejecting the revision filed under Section

80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a lawful tenant in respect of Shop No.C forming part of the commercial building bearing M.I.G. No.115, 2^nd Main Road, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Extension, Chennai, through a valid rental agreement dated 01.06.2023. While the tenancy was subsisting, the 4^th respondent had purchased the property on 01.02.2024 and with the connivance of the officials, indirectly is taking steps to evict the tenant.

3. At the instance of the 4^th respondent, the officials inspected the property on 13.08.2025 and issued Form-III notice dated 18.09.2025 alleging unauthorised construction and proposing demolition. No notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner. Challenging the notice issued, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1^st respondent under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], which was rejected through the impugned order dated 18.02.2026. As such, the tenant has assailed the order rejecting the revision in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not issued with any notice or provided with an opportunity and the 1^st respondent failed to consider this vital aspect while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the 4^th respondent being the subsequent purchaser of the property, cannot be allowed to take proceedings under the Act only for the purpose of evicting the tenant. The entire action undertaken is based on the instigation and connivance between the officials and the 4^th respondent.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that the Authority had considered the revision pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 21.01.2026 and passed a reasoned order on merits, finding that the building did not have any statutory approval.

6. Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel for the 4^th respondent argued that when the authorities are taking proceedings under the Act for violation of the statutory rules in putting up the unauthorised construction, particularly when the building is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition, requiring immediate demolition, which is also recorded by this Court in the earlier order, the allegation made by the petitioner is completely misplaced and without any material.

7. Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

8. The Enforcement Authorities of the Chennai Corporation had inspected the subject building on 13.08.2025 and found that unauthorised development of the building has been carried out on the premises. The details of the unauthorised construction were noted as below:-

9. Notice in Form-III came to be issued in respect of the unauthorised building. The petitioner/tenant had challenged the notice issued by filing a statutory revision before the Government under Section 80-A of the Act. The petitioner and other tenants, including the 4^th respondent/owner, had participated in the enquiry before