ORDER : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 09.10.2015, cancelling the license issued to the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for running a medical shop, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced agreement of tenancy in respect of the shop, in which, he is running the said medical shop. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he entered into a lease agreement with one J.H. Krishnamoorthy in respect of the premises and is running the said medical shop, after obtaining license from the competent authority, for about 40 years. It is his further case that after the death of the said Krishnamoorthy on 26.08.2013, as he was not aware of the present owner of the premises, he resorted to deposit the rent into the Court by filing an application under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2015 on the file of District Munsif (Rent Controller), Madurai Town. Thus, it is contended that as the petitioner continues to be the statutory tenant based on the lease deed executed by the original owner, the authority, namely, the second respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. 3. The third respondent herein, who got himself impleaded as party in the present writ petition, claims that the property has been gifted to him by his grandfather, namely, the said J.H. Krishnamoorthy and therefore, he becomes the owner of the property and in the absence of any rental agreement between the petitioner and the third respondent, the petitioner cannot continue to have the license based on the original rental agreement. 4. It is seen that the present third respondent earlier approached this Court and filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13562 of 2015 seeking for a Mandamus directing the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Madurai, to consider his representation, dated 27.03.2015, wherein and whereby he sought for cancellation of drug license issued in favour of the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as fourth respondent therein. In that writ petition, an order came to be passed on 31.07.2015 directing the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Madurai, to consider the representation of the petitioner therein (third respondent herein), after issuing notice to the fourth respondent therein (the petitioner herein) and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. In that writ petition, an order came to be passed on 31.07.2015 directing the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Madurai, to consider the representation of the petitioner therein (third respondent herein), after issuing notice to the fourth respondent therein (the petitioner herein) and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Consequent upon such order passed by this Court and after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides, the present impugned order came to be passed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner is the statutory tenant and therefore, the licensing authority cannot cancel the license based on the objection raised by the third respondent herein. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that there is no tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the third respondent and consequently, the impugned order has been rightly passed, with which, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is not in dispute that the property, in which the petitioner is running the medical shop as a tenant, originally belonged to one J.H. Krishnamoorthy, who is none other than the grandfather of the third respondent. The third respondent, however, claims that the said property was gifted to him by his grandfather on 23.08.2012 and from that date onwards, he becomes the owner of the property and the petitioner has not entered into any fresh lease agreement with the third respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot continue to run the shop as he is not the tenant under the third respondent. Perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case would show that the above contentions of the third respondent are factually incorrect and misleading as the same is against his own averments made in his petition filed under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act in R.C.O.P.No.249 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif (Rent Controller), Madurai, seeking for eviction of the present petitioner on the ground of wilful default by treating him as the tenant. The relevant paragraph Nos.5 to 9 of the said petition are extracted hereunder:- "5. The respondent herein had been a tenant running a medical shop in the name of Aruna Medicals in the suit property with Tr. The relevant paragraph Nos.5 to 9 of the said petition are extracted hereunder:- "5. The respondent herein had been a tenant running a medical shop in the name of Aruna Medicals in the suit property with Tr. J.H. Krishnamoorthy, the grandfather of the petitioners, until the above suit property was settled to them on 23.08.2012, and after the date of settlement of the above suit property, it immediately came under the control of the petitioners. 6. Pursuant to the gift settlement of the suit property in favour of the above petitioners, negotiations were carried on during the end of the month August 2012 between the petitioners and the respondent for the purpose of fresh tenancy of the above suit property in favour of the petitioners, and the same was done in the presence of J.H. Krishnamoorthy, the grandfather of the petitioners, and in the presence of the parents of the petitioners. 7. During the course of negotiations, it was agreed by both the petitioner and the respondent that the rent for the suit property shall be fixed as Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month, payable by the respondent to the petitioners on or before the 5th day of every English calendar month, and the rent for the 1st month to commence from 5.9.2012, and payable on or before the date of 5.10.2012. It was also agreed by both the petitioner and the respondent that, the respondent shall keep an amount of refundable advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the petitioners towards the suit property, which refundable advance will also comprise the amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- already standing in his account when he has been a tenant with the said J.H. Krishnamoorthy. It was also agreed by both parties to fix the tenure of the tenancy of the suit property for one year from the date of 5.9.2012 to 5.8.2013, and it was also agreed by both the parties to hold that the above tenure of the tenancy of the suit property to be extended every year, if mutually agreed upon by both the parties. 8. 8. In the above discussions, it was also agreed by both the parties that, the respondent should pay the rent towards the suit property at Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month for a period of 12 months from 5.9.2012 to 5.8.2013, and for the every further succeeding 12 months, the rent of the suit property to be enhanced by 10% on the existed monthly rent, and accordingly, the rent payable to the suit property every month for the period of succeeding 12 months commencing from 5.9.2013 to 5.8.2014 shall be at Rs. 8800/-. 9. The above respondent, having agreed to all the above norms of fresh tenancy of the suit property with the petitioners, did not turn up to pay the agreed fresh rent of Rs. 8000/- payable to the petitioners every month for the period from 5.9.2012 to 5.8.2013 and also did not turn up to pay the fresh rent of Rs. 8800/- from 5.9.2013 to 5.3.2014. Whenever the petitioners asked the respondent on the 5th day of every month, from the month of September 2012, to the month of March 2014, for the payment of rents payable for the suit property, the respondent was giving evasive replies, and thus was dodging the payment of rent, and also dodging the balance amount of refundable advance of Rs. 1,64,000/- payable towards the suit property." 9. Perusal of the above averments made by the third respondent in the above eviction petition would undoubtedly show that the third respondent herein has admitted the petitioner herein as the tenant and also claimed that agreed rent payable by the petitioner was Rs. 8,000/- per month, which rental amount was not paid by the petitioner for certain periods. This Court is not going into the merits of such claim made in the eviction petition now, as it is for the Rent Controller to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. However, the averments made in the eviction petition by the third respondent with regard to the status of the parties are material for deciding the present writ petition and therefore, those averments are taken into consideration only for such limited purpose. 10. However, the averments made in the eviction petition by the third respondent with regard to the status of the parties are material for deciding the present writ petition and therefore, those averments are taken into consideration only for such limited purpose. 10. Therefore, when it is the admitted case of the third respondent that the petitioner herein is the tenant under him, than the question of cancelling the license by the second respondent herein on the reason that the petitioner has not filed any rental agreement does not arise, even assuming that there is a dispute pending between the landlord and tenant in respect of the payment of rent. Therefore, the very filing of the R.C.O.P.No.249 of 2014 by the third respondent against the petitioner is enough for the second respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the tenant under the third respondent and consequently, the license granted to the petitioner to run the medical shop in the said premises cannot be cancelled at the instance of the third respondent on the ground that there is no proof of tenancy. Needless to say that the third respondent cannot resort to evict the petitioner from the premises indirectly by seeking cancellation of license, unless and until he is evicted by due process or law. Therefore, I find that the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition allowed.