THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 37925 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; and Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner is the tenant and respondent No.5 is the landlord of property bearing shop No.1-62/52, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District. It is not disputed that in the said premises, the petitioner was running Bar and Restaurant having obtained 2-B Bar License vide License No.676 during the excise year 2018. The petitioner has entered into lease agreement with respondent No.5 vide lease deed document bearing No.15574/2018, dated 19.09.2018 for a period commencing from 01.10.2018 and expiring on 30.09.2022. After expiry of the lease, respondent No.5-landlord instituted suit vide O.S.No.320 of 2021, on the file of learned XV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents and mense profits also. The tenant i.e., the petitioner 2 BVR,J W.P.No.37925 of 2022 herein instituted suit vide O.S.No.589 of 2021 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Rangareddy District for perpetual injunction to restrain respondent No.5 from interfering with peaceful possession, otherwise to follow the due process of law.
3. Respondent No.5 submitted a representation to respondent No.4 not to extend the 2-B Bar License to the petitioner stating that the lease period has expired and the petitioner does not have lease as required under Rule 6 (1) (vi) of Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions Licence) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2005') which reads as under:
"Rule 6 :Restrictions on the grant of Licence:
(vi) Unless the applicant produces the lease deed on a Stamp paper for the proposed licensed premises from the owner of the premises."
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36681 of 2015. In the said case, the tenant was granted injunction by the trial Court and on the 3 BVR,J W.P.No.37925 of 2022 basis of temporary injunction, the liquor license of the tenant was extended. However, on interpretation of Rule 6 and Rule 9-A of Rules of 2005, the learned Single Judge held that respondents' possession would only be protected by such injunction, but she is not entitled to seek renewal of bar licence without a lease deed in relation to the subject premises and held that renewal of bar license on the strength of injunction order passed by the civil Court is contrary to the statutory position and as well as law laid down by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not run the bar and restaurant for more than one year during COVID period and the five years lease period has to be calculated by deleting the period during which the petitioner could not run business.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court dated 25.05.2022 in Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd V. Miniso Life Style Pvt Ltd & Anr1.
1 2022 LawSuit (Del) 1315 4 BVR,J W.P.No.37925 of 2022
7. In response to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Nalini Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain any dispute regarding extension of lease and the same is not permissible in public law remedy. The Rules 6 and 9-A of the Rules, 2005 mandates that license cannot be granted unless there is a lease deed. On representation submitted by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 did not renew the license and there is no total restriction on petitioner and petitioner was permitted to shift his business to alternate premises.
8. The judgment of the Delhi High Court Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd's case (supra) is arising out of a civil suit. In para 33 therein, it was held as follows:
"Therefore, I am of the view that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of force majeure clause insofar as payment of rent for the months of April, 2020 and May, 2020 is concerned."
9. However, in the opinion of this Court, the facts of the case are different and the issue is also different and the 5 BVR,J W.P.No.37925 of 2022 judgment of the Delhi High Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. As the rights of the tenant in respect of tenanted property after expiry of lease and even when injunction order was subsisting, the case was considered by learned Single Judge and it was held that the bar license cannot be renewed as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2005. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 11.10.2022 KL/GVR Note: Issue C.C. today.