SMT GOWRI Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Jagadeesan, J. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17460 of1990 dated 15.12.1998.

(2.) THE writ petitioner/appellant had been allotted a space measuring 110 sq.ft. in front of the shopping complex belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at K.K.Nagar in July, 1985. THE lease period is for one year. THE lease expired on 1.6.1986 as admitted by both the parties. Whileso, the notice was issued to the appellant by the Housing Board on 2.7.1980 under Sec.84(2) of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act seeking the appellant to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled, as she has contravened the conditions stipulated in the lease deed by putting up additional superstructure, which was prohibited under the terms and conditions of the lease.

(3.) WE are unable to agree with the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the writ petitioner's possession was not disturbed during the subsistence of the lease, even though it is stated that the lease was cancelled during the subsistence of the lease. Hence, the period of lease, as entered into between the parties under the lease deed, has not been disturbed. When that be the case, there is no need for the respondents to issue any notice in respect of the cancellation of the lease. Even though the lease had been cancelled during the subsistence of the lease, the said cancellation order has not been given effect to