Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Ramasamy, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging a notice dated 2.11.2021 issued by the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli. The notice called upon the petitioner to attend an enquiry scheduled for 22.11.2021. The petitioner was the landlord and the second respondent, B. Karikalan, was the tenant. They had entered into a rental agreement on 31.01.2020 for a period of 11 months. The tenant committed default in payment of rent. However, by the time the notice was issued, the lease period had already expired. The court heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials. The court observed that since the lease period had expired, no complaint could be entertained by the first respondent. Consequently, the impugned notice could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. The writ petition was allowed, the notice was quashed, and no order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Quashing of Notice - Petitioner challenged notice issued by Revenue Divisional Officer calling for enquiry in a landlord-tenant dispute - Court held that since the lease period had expired, the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - Notice quashed, writ allowed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer can entertain a complaint regarding a tenancy after the lease period has expired.
Final Decision
The impugned notice was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Writ of Certiorari
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Landlord-Tenant dispute
- Lease expiry
- Revenue Divisional Officer's jurisdiction
