THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No. 663 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant; Mr. D.L.Pandu, learned Government
Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondents No.1
to 4; and Mr. B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.37925 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the proceedings dated 20.07.2022 of respondent No.4 insisting upon the appellant to select other premises for renewal of the bar licence for the excise year 2022-23 with effect from 01.10.2022 to 30.09.2023.
4. Appellant is the tenant of the property bearing shop No. 1-62/52, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District of which respondent No.5 is the landlady. In the subject premises, appellant was running a Bar and Restaurant having obtained 2-B bar licence vide licence No.676 during the excise year 2018. Appellant had entered into a lease agreement with respondent No.5 vide lease dated 19.09.2018 for the period commencing from 01.10.2018 till 30.09.2022. After expiry of the lease, respondent No.5 instituted O.S.No.320 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents and mense profits. On the other hand, appellant instituted O.S.No.589 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Kukatpally for perpetual injunction to restrain respondent No.5 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the subject property except by following the due process of law. On a representation by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings dated 20.07.2022, calling upon the appellant to select another premises for the purpose of renewal of bar licence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellant preferred the related writ petition.
5. Learned Single Judge referred to Rule 6(1)(vi) of the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions Licence) Rules, 2005 (briefly, 'the Rules' hereinafter), and took the view that unless there is a valid lease deed, question of grant of licence or renewal thereof would not arise. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance on Rule 6 of the Rules which deals with grant of initial licence. For renewal of licence, Rule 9A of the Rules is relevant. Rule 9A of the Rules does not speak about having a valid subsisting lease deed for renewal of the licence. That apart, he submits that there is an injunction order passed by the civil Court in favour of the appellant. This being the position, respondent No.4 was not justified in declining to renew the licence in the said premises.
7. However, learned counsel for respondent No.5 supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
9. We may advert to the lease deed dated 19.09.2018 entered into between respondent No.5 and the appellant. Clause-1 of the lease deed specifically mentions that the lease deed would be for a period of 48 months beginning from 1st October, 2018 upto 30th September, 2022 at a monthly rent of Rs.60,000/-. This position is elaborated in clause-4 which says that the lease period would automatically be cancelled immediately after completion of the lease period on 30.09.2022. Clause-5 makes it abundantly clear that the lease deed was executed between the parties to enable the appellant to conduct the business of Bar and Restaurant only with all permissions, licences, approvals etc., as required from the competent authority and it was specifically mentioned that under no circumstance, the lessee (appellant) would be entitled to change the business of Bar and Restaurant.
10. Though learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Rule 9 of the Rules, we are of the view that Rule 9 of the Rules has to be read in conjunction with Rule 6 of the Rules. When there is no valid subsisting lease as on date, no fault can be found with the action of respondent No.4 in calling upon the appellant to find out a suitable/alternative place for carrying on its business of Bar and Restaurant to enable respondent No.4 to consider renewal of bar licence.
11. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 18.10.2022 Myk