JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to surrender possession of the building in Door No.1025 old No.1369, Nadar Buildings, Trichy Road, Coimbatore to the writ petitioner after evicting the second respondent herein from the aforesaid premises. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing old Door No.354, and new Door No.1369 of Trichy Road, Coimbatore, in the year 2003 and a new Door No. has been assigned as Door No.1625. The said portion is situated in T.S.No.1/1340. There are two adjacent portions bearing two separate door numbers. The premises bearing Door No.1369, the new Door No.1625, 'Nadar Buildings' Trichy Road, Coimbatore-18, was under the control of the first respondent/ The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Accommodation Controller as the Government is the tenant under him. Hence, the application was made before the first respondent praying for the release of the building to the petitioner as he needed the same for the occupation and additional accommodation of his daughter and her family. He has also given a statement along with the application containing information and details regarding the building sought to be released. The Tahsildar conducted an enquiry on 29.08.97. However, the first respondent herein has not passed any orders in the petitioner's application at that point of time. When the first respondent made an order of allotment in favour of the second respondent Mr.S.Nandagopal, allotting the building in question to him on the ground that it is a licence for the period from 5.6.98 onwards, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5939 of 1999 before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.S.R.1/98/2 dated 10.12.1998 to quash the same with a further direction to the respondent herein to hand over the vacant possession of building bearing Old Door No.354, and new Door No.1368 of Trichy Road, Coimbatore. Adding further, it is stated that the learned Judge after hearing the matter was pleased to dismiss the writ petition dated 06.03.2002 holding that the petitioner should have approached the Rent Controller concerned. Adding further, it is stated that the learned Judge after hearing the matter was pleased to dismiss the writ petition dated 06.03.2002 holding that the petitioner should have approached the Rent Controller concerned. However, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge the petitioner has filed writ appeal in W.A.No.3496 of 2002 and the same was admitted and notice was ordered to the first respondent. When the matter stood as above, the first respondent after going through the records and report of the Tahsildar considered the bonafide need of the house made by the petitioner for her daughter. Accordingly, he passed an order dated 31.5.2004, releasing the building in question, giving direction to the second respondent to vacate and handover the premises to the petitioner. In the said order, he has also requested the petitioner to withdraw the above Writ Appeal in W.A.No.3496 of 2002, failing which the order of release of the building will automatically stand lapsed. In view of the specific condition imposed in the order dated 31.05.2004 directing the petitioner to withdraw the writ appeal in W.A.No.3496 of 2002, the same was withdrawn on 09.07.2004. However, in the meanwhile, a notice was received from the second respondent in O.S.No.2107/2004 in I.A.No.1125/2004 from the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. He has filed an interim application for injunction restraining the first respondent and the petitioner from interfering with his possession and no interim order has been granted in the said interim application. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is once the order of release has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Officer-cum-Accomodation/the first respondent herein, exercising power conferred under Section 3-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is not open to the second respondent who is a licencee to question the order passed by the first respondent. 3. Relying upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case in D.A.Dubier Versus The Collector of Madras and another reported in 1990 (1) LW 164 , this Court has held that licencee like the second respondent herein has no right of audience, since the proceeding passed by exercising the powers conferred under Section 3-A (2) is between landlord and his tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also highlighted the approach adopted by the tenant as a licencee by misusing the process of the Court who has approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.2107/2004. Therefore, he contended that the suit filed by the second respondent is frivilous, non maintainable and untenable and hence the same has to be simply ignored and cannot be taken into account. 4. Taking support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court stated supra, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the question as to whether the allottee has a right of representation in release proceedings under Section 3-A(2) of the Act or has a right of appeal as an aggrieved person under Section 3-A (3), has been answered against the second respondent holding that the allottee has no representation in the release proceedings. The pendency of civil suit filed by the second respondent being vexacious proceedings cannot be gone into by way of granting the prayer in favour of the petitioner. Again bringing the notice of this Court to paragraph 9 of the Judgment highlighted above, he stated that another similar and identical issue was brought before this Court in Durai Versus Government of Tamil Nadu reported in89 Law Weekly 558 wherein it was held that under similar circumstances, when an allottee was not given notice before passing of the order, the learned single Judge has held that the order directing the release of the building, amounted to a revocation of the licence granted in favour of the allottee and he was not entitled to any notice. Being a mere licencee of the statutory tenant viz., the Government, the allottee had no independent right to agitate as against the Government. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the said Judgment by allowing the writ petition. 5. Being a mere licencee of the statutory tenant viz., the Government, the allottee had no independent right to agitate as against the Government. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the said Judgment by allowing the writ petition. 5. Taking one more support from another Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1996 Madras 454 in the case of M.S.Shaik Mohamed Shah Versus State of Madras and others for the preposition that Government taking over possession of vacant premises and allotting it to a Government servant cannot tantamount no tenancy between the owner of the premises of such allottee and allottee who is only a licensee from the Government who becomes statutory tenant, hence, the Government is entitled to terminate the licence and ask the allottee to vacate the premises. With all these rulings, the learned counsel for the petitioner finally prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 6. None appears for the second respondent. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has submitted that after the impugned order dated 31.05.2004 was passed by the first respondent exercising the power conferred under Section 3-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, directing the second respondent herein to hand over the premises in question to the petitioner who is a land lord, a civil suit in O.S.No.2107/2004, along with interlocutary application was filed by the second respondent on the file of learned Principal District Munsif Court, seeking for interim injunction in the interlocutary application restraining the first respondent herein and the petitioner from interfering with his possession. Although, no interim order has been granted so far and the said suit was pending, in view of the pendency of the suit, it is not known whether the petitioner can file the present writ petition. 7. Although, no interim order has been granted so far and the said suit was pending, in view of the pendency of the suit, it is not known whether the petitioner can file the present writ petition. 7. Adding further, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that there is no doubt that the petitioner is a land lord and the Government is a tenant and the second respondent being Government servant was allotted the premises in question, as a licencee, while so in all fairness, the second respondent after the release order was passed by the first respondent, by exercising the powers conferred under 3-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 should have handed over the vacant premises. However, he has filed a suit and as it is pending the same should also be taken into account. 8. When, the matter was taken up before lunch session no one appeared on behalf of the second respondent and even after the matter is called for hearing after lunch no one appeared for the second respondent. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Old Door No.354 and New Door No.1369 of Trichy Road, Coimbatore, which is under the control of the first respondent and the Government is the tenant under the petitioner right from the year, 1948. However, one Muthusamy having licence, occupied the premises during the period from 08.09.1980 till he vacated on 26.6.1998. The first respondent has passed an order to hand over the possession to the petitioner in the year, 1989. Opposing the said order asking him to vacate, he filed W.P.No.1195 of 1985 before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and obtained an order of stay of the same. By virtue of the said order, he continued to occupy the premises for more than 8 years. The writ petition was also filed without impleading the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed an application to implead himself as a party in the year 1997 and the said application was allowed by this court by impleading the second respondent in the said writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent after finding that he had no right to be in possession of premises in his occupation withdrew the writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent after finding that he had no right to be in possession of premises in his occupation withdrew the writ petition. Similarly that writ petition was also dismissed and he prayed for some more time to hand over the possession of the premises to the first respondent and this Court has granted four months time to vacate the premises subject to his filing an affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the first respondent. Accordingly, he filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court. But, evenafter filing such an affidavit after the expiry of the said period for vacating the premises the second respondent has not vacated the premises and continued to be in vacant premises. Therefore, the petitioner has written a letter to the first respondent dated 12.06.1998 and brought to his notice that the second respondent has not vacated the premises as undertaken by him. Only after the receipt of the said letter, the first respondent took steps to take possession of the building from the second respondent on 26.06.1998. The petitioner made an application on 10.06.1997 to the first respondent making a prayer for the release of the building to the petitioner as he needed the same for the occupation and additional accommodation of his daughter and her family. The petitioner has also given the statement along with application containing the information and details regarding the building sought to be released. It is at that point of time, the Tahsildar on behalf of the Government under instructions from higher officers issued a notice on 22.07.1997 calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 30.08.1997. However, finally on the report submitted by the Tahsildar the first respondent passed an order dated 31.05.2004 with two condition viz: one directing the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Appeal No. 3496 of 2002 filed against the order of dismissal of his W.P.No.5939 of 1999, failing which the order of release directing the second respondent to vacate the premises in question will stand lapsed. Therefore, the first respondent accepting the report submitted by the Tahsildar exercised the powers conferred under Section 3-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and has passed the dated 31.05.2004. Therefore, the first respondent accepting the report submitted by the Tahsildar exercised the powers conferred under Section 3-A (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and has passed the dated 31.05.2004. The petitioner also with the hope that the premises in question would be handed over by the second respondent to the petitioner through the first respondent had withdrawn the writ appeal on 09.07.2004. But, after the withdrawal of the Writ appeal, as per the condition mentioned in the order dated 31.05.2004, the second respondent who was only a licencee under the Government adamantly refused to vacate and handover the premises in question and subsequently O.S.No.2107 of 2004 along with I.A.No.1125 of 2004 has been filed before the learned Principal District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore and the same is also pending. 9. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the allottee has a right of representation as against the proceedings, under Section 3–A (2) and has a right of appeal under Section 3-A(3). The another question needs to be answered by this Court is whether the second respondent herein against whom the order of release dated 31.05.2004 was passed by the first respondent to vacate the premises can approach the civil Court by filing a suit, in his capacity as a tenant or as a licencee. Thus, both the questions has been clearly answered by this Court in a case in D.A.Dubier Versus The Collector of Madras and another reported in 1990 (1) LW 164 . It is useful to extract paragraph 8 and 9 of the Judgment as follows: “8. We shall now refer to certain decisions of this Court on the question, whether an allottee has a right of representation in the release proceedings under S.3-A(2) of the Act or has a right of appeal as an aggrieved person under S.3-A (3). In Viswanathan Versus Collector of Madras (W.P.No.9559 of 1982), one of us (Sathiadev, J) held that since, the allottee was only a licencee under the Government, which is legally the tenant of the premises, the allottee cannot claim the status of a tenant under Act and therefore,he is not entitled to challenge an order passed by the Government directing the release of the building but is bound by the action of the Government and cannot claim any independent right, apart from his possession as an allottee. 9. 9. In Durai Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, a learned Judge, under similar circumstances, when an order of release was challenged by an allottee on the ground that he was not given any notice before the passing of the order, held that the order directing the release of the building, amounted to a revocation of the licence granted in favour of the allottee and he was not entitled to any notice. Being a mere licence of the statutory tenant viz., the Government, the allottee had no independent right to agitate as against the Government.” 10. A cursory reading of the above observation of this Court clearly shows that the second respondent was a Government servant and is not entitled to challenge the order passed by the Government and is therefore bound by the action of the Government and cannot claim any independent right as an allottee. Whereas, in an identical issue came before this Court in Durai Versus Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 89 Law Weekly 558, under the similar circumstances, learned single Judge while dealing with the similar controversy that when the order of release was challenged on the ground that he was not given notice before passing of the order has categorically held that the order directing the release of the building amounted to a revocation of the licence granted in favour of the allottee and he was not entitled to any notice. The said case also further holds that being a mere licencee of the statutory tenant, viz., Government, the allottee has no independent right to agitate as against the Government. 11. The said case also further holds that being a mere licencee of the statutory tenant, viz., Government, the allottee has no independent right to agitate as against the Government. 11. In one another case in S.Ganesan Versus The Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others reported in 99 Law Weekly 974, when the question as to whether an allottee of a building has to be put to hearing before the Accommodation Controller also came up for consideration, the Division Bench of this Court took note of three decisions referred to inDurai Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 89 L.W. 558, S.Swaminathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 98 L.W. 346 and Viswanathan Versus Collector of Madras (W.P.No.9559 of 1982) and had held that it was needless to go into that question in that case, since, on the facts before it even if it could be assumed that the allottee had a right of representation before the appropriate authority, he had in fact made a representation which had been considered by the authorities and rejected. However, the legal issue therefore was left open. However, by further analysing the question whether the allottee is having a right of audience, this Court has rightly decided in Pattabiraman Versus Accomodation Controller reported in 84 Law Weekly 779, making it clear that it would still be a proceeding between the landlord and his tenant, in which (sic) nine also none else will have a right of audience, i.e. the licencee cannot have any right of audience either before this Court or before the Civil Court as it is a matter between only landlord and the tenant. 12. When this Court has already held that an allottee in the release proceedings passed under Section 3-A (2) of the Act is not an aggrieved person under Section 3-A and has no right of appeal under Section 3-A (3) against the order of release, I have no hesitation to eschew and ignore the pending frivolous suit preferred by the second respondent. It may also be seen that admittedly the Civil Suit had been filed by the second respondent and successfully, he has managed to keep the said frivolous civil suit alive even after ten years. 13. In that view of the matter it amply shows that the second respondent has no plan or inclination to expedite the pending suit. It may also be seen that admittedly the Civil Suit had been filed by the second respondent and successfully, he has managed to keep the said frivolous civil suit alive even after ten years. 13. In that view of the matter it amply shows that the second respondent has no plan or inclination to expedite the pending suit. In any event, this Court having held that the second respondent has no right of appeal or audience even in the release order passed by the first respondent on 31.05.2004, the pendency of the civil suit, as highlighted above, cannot come in the way of granting relief sought for by the petitioner. 14. Even as per the Judgment of this Court in M.S.Shaik Mohamed Shah Versus State of Madras and others reported in AIR 1966 (Mad) 454 , this Court has held that a Government Servant, who has been allotted the premises of which the Government have taken possession of under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is nothing more than a licence. Section (9)(a)(ii) is specifically intended to confer upon the Government this remedy of taking possession and the existence of this provision itself makes it quite clear that a Government servant who has been allotted the premises is only a licencee. 15. When that being the settled legal position, tt is alarming to see the conduct of the second respondent who appeared to be once upon a time in the position of an Assistant, a Government servant, improperly and contumaciously dragging on the Commercial Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for no good reason. If every Government servant like the second respondent, even after passing the release order is allowed to go to Civil Court for obtaining a decree for injunction either against the Government or against the landlord it would be highly impossible for the Government to accommodate another Government Servant who are badly in need of official accommodation. Therefore, knowing this type of situation, Section 3-A (2) and (3) are brought in the statute book giving enormous power to the first respondent to pass order of releasing a building. Therefore, knowing this type of situation, Section 3-A (2) and (3) are brought in the statute book giving enormous power to the first respondent to pass order of releasing a building. It is more apt to extract 3-A (2) and 3, which reads as follows: Section 3-A(2) The authorized officer may, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and reasonable, make an order releasing the building subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may thing fit and if he is not so satisfied, make an order rejecting the application made under sub-section (1). (3) Any person who is aggrieved by an order passed by the authorized officer under sub-section (2) may, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such order, prefer an appeal to the Government and the Government shall pass such order as they deem fit and on such appeal being preferred, the Government may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. 16. A cursory reading of Section 3-A (2) clearly speaks that the authorised officer if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and reasonable, may make an order releasing the building subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may think fit and if he is not so satisfied, can make an order rejecting the application made under sub-section (1). But, as far as the present case is concerned, since this Court has already held that the Government servant who was served with an order of release has no right of appeal, it goes without saying that he has no locus standi to move the Civil Court and order likely to be passed or passed already will have no bearing at all. 17. In view of the above reasons, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The first respondent is directed to take all possible steps to vacate the premises in question and handover the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the first respondent finds any impediment in securing the possession from the second respondent, it is always open to secure the same by forcible eviction with the help of police protection. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. If the first respondent finds any impediment in securing the possession from the second respondent, it is always open to secure the same by forcible eviction with the help of police protection. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. If the second Respondent is in service, it is open to the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings for his indiscipline and insubordination, in not complying with the order of eviction as a duty ful Government Servant.