Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the correspondent of A.Vaidyanatheiar Memorial Middle School, which is an aided school. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.3022, Revenue Department, dated 21.12.1964, granting lease of 8364 sq.ft. of land, comprised in T.S.No.2464/2 at North Madurai Village in Madurai District to the said school. Subsequently, the petitioner school had constructed buildings for the use of the school. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 (in short “the Act”), licence was periodically issued by the competent authority under the Act. Lastly, for the period 2008-2011, an application was made to the Tahsilar, seeking licence under the Act. But, the Tahsildar, during spot inspection, found that buildings had been constructed in violation of the lease agreement between the Government and the petitioner school referred to above. In essence, according to the Tahsildar, the lease was granted only to use the land as a playground and for garden purpose; whereas, in violation of the said terns and conditions, building had been constructed. On this reasoning, the Tahsidlar, who is the competent authority under the Act, declined to grant licence. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, in turn, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6724/10/J, dated 10.12.2010, dismissed the appeal. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, by proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.10798/05/Y3, dated 16.12.2011, thereby confirming the order of the Tahsildar as well as the order of the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records, carefully. 3. Before going into the facts of the case, let us have a quick look into the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(7) of the Act defines the term 'owner', which includes a lessee, licensee, mortgagee or any person to whose control the building has been entrusted. This is only an inclusive definition. A person who owns the building is also a 'owner' in terms of the Act. Now, turning to Section 4 of the Act, it states that any owner who intends to use any building as a public building to make an application in writing to the competent authority for a licence therefor. This is only an inclusive definition. A person who owns the building is also a 'owner' in terms of the Act. Now, turning to Section 4 of the Act, it states that any owner who intends to use any building as a public building to make an application in writing to the competent authority for a licence therefor. Therefore, basically, it is the owner, who is entitled to make an application for licence. Section 5 of the Act states that while processing the said application, the competent authority has to obtain the opinion of a competent engineer regarding the stability of the building and thereafter he may or may not issue licence under Section 6 of the Act. The object of the Act is to provide safety for the users of such public buildings. A cursory perusal of the entire Act would go to show that there is no reference to the site but, there is reference only to the building, everywhere. Thus, the Act is all about only the building and not of the site. The definition clause contained in Section 2(7) would only speak about the owner of the building and not of the site. Therefore, the competent authority has got less to say about the ownership of the land. In Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, it has been indicated under what circumstances licence can also be denied. Section 8 of the Act deals with the renewal. Hence, in this case, the petitioner has applied for renewal which is governed by section 8(2) of the Act, which states that renewal application shall be considered like that of an application for fresh licence. Therefore, the conditions stated in Sections 5, 6 and 7 are applicable to in the case of renewal also. But, nowhere in these provisions there is anything stated about the ownership of the site. Therefore, I could say that the object of the Act is only with reference to the safety of the building so as to safeguard the users. The Competent Authority need not toil much in respect of the ownership and also to examine as to whether the terms and conditions of the lease have been violated. 4. Therefore, I could say that the object of the Act is only with reference to the safety of the building so as to safeguard the users. The Competent Authority need not toil much in respect of the ownership and also to examine as to whether the terms and conditions of the lease have been violated. 4. In the case on hand, admittedly, from the year 1965 onwards, building licence has been given for the very same building and the Government has not taken any objection in respect of the construction of the building, though the initial lease agreement is only for the school to have play ground and garden. In such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the respondents were not right in denying the renewal of licence. Therefore, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the application afresh, see the safety of the building and if the petitioner satisfies all other requirements, issue licence to him. It is further directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.