Telangana High Court
Mrs. K. Shakunthala, vs M/S Cafe Lilliputian Bar And Restraunt on 26 April, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1206 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr.B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Srinivas Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.269 of 2024 in O.S.No.320 of 2021, passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
3. Vide the said impugned order, the court below has rejected a petition filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for passing of a judgment and decree in part so far as evicting the defendants from the suit schedule property and delivering the possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.
4. The Original Suit i.e., O.S.No.320 of 2021, was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and also for mense profit. The suit, by efflux of time and on completion of pleadings has reached the stage of trial. At this 2 juncture, the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking for issuance of decree in part in so far as evicting the defendants from the suit schedule property, delivery of possession to the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.A.No.663 of 2022, decided on 18.10.2022.
5. It is this application which stands rejected by the trial court which has lead to the filing of the instant civil revision petition.
6. The petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the respondents in respect of the premises bearing H.No.1-62/52, plinth area of 3780 Sq.feet and shop Nos.1 to 3 and the land on which the premised and the shops are constructed, admeasuring 500 Sq.yards situated at Kavuri Hills, Gutala Begumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad. The lease agreement was entered on 19.09.2019, for a period of three years and which was to expired on 30.09.2022. Before the expiry of the lease period itself, the present suit i.e., O.S.No.320 of 2021 was filed seeking for the eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and also for mense profit. The respondent tenants have also entered appearance and contesting the case which has reached its trial 3 stage. The respondents were using the premises as a bar and restaurant after obtaining the requisite license from the Excise Department. Since lease was expiring on 30.09.2022, the petitioner/landlord had intimated the Excise Department about the lease coming to an end and that it is no longer renewed, therefore, appropriate license may not be granted to the respondents for operating the bar and restaurant. Taking into consideration the objection that the petitioner/landlord had pressed before the Excise Department, the Department refused to extend the license beyond 30.09.2022. The non-renewal of the license was subjected to challenge before the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction by way of Writ Petition No.37925 of 2022, which stood dismissed, vide order dated 11.10.2022, on the ground that since lease has expired and the rules governing the field i.e., Rule 6 (IV) of the Telangana Excise (grant of license of selling by bar and Conditions License) Rules, 2005 which prescribes a proper valid lease deed executed stamp paper for the purpose of issuance of license. In the absence of which the writ court found that non-renewal or non-granting of further license to be justified and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment of the Single Bench was subjected to challenge before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Writ Appeal No.663 of 4 2022. The Division Bench also affirmed the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench held as under:
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.
7. Based upon the said observations made by the Division Bench in writ appeal, the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed before the court below, seeking for issuance of a decree in part in the suit, so far as eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule property and for delivering of the possession of the same. Though the application was filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C., the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions invoked under Order 12 Rule 6 for issuance of decree on the basis of material available on record which stands undisputed. 5
8. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, once when there is a categorical observation by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No.663 of 2022, holding that no valid subsisting lease exists as on date, the appellant before the High Court cannot and would not be entitled for grant of license for operating the premises. That the observation also was that the appellant should find an alternative suitable place for carrying of the business of bar and restaurant which in other words according to the learned Senior Counsel is sufficient to indicate that the respondents should vacate the premises and look for an alternative place, if at all, if they intent to operate their business of bar and restaurant or getting a suitable license for the same.
9. According to learned Senior Counsel, the observation made by the court below while rejecting the application i.e., I.A.No.269 of 2021, holding that the expiry of lease period or the subsistence of the tenancy has not been decided by the High Court, is bad in law and contrary to materials available on record and therefore, it needs to be reversed.
10. However, perusal of the pleading and the materials available on record, admittedly, the suit schedule premises was 6 given on lease for a period of three years initially by the petitioner to the respondent/defendants from 19.09.2019 to 30.09.2022, before the expiry of the lease period itself, the original suit i.e., O.S.No.320 of 2021 was filed. The pleadings also was adduced in the said suit. It was only in the year 2022 when the lease was coming to an end with effect from 30.09.2022, that the petitioner herein the landlord of the premises had informed the Excise Department in respect of the lease coming to an end on 30.09.2022 and therefore, the license be not renewed or fresh license may not be issued in favour of the respondent/defendant. This objection of the petitioner was accepted by the Excise Department. As a consequence of which the license was not further issued to the respondent/defendant. The non-renewal was subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition which stood dismissed and which was further affirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.663 of 2022, decided on 18.10.2022.
11. What is necessary to be appreciated at this juncture is that the dispute between the defendants before the High Court was that of the action on the part of the Excise Department for not granting the license beyond 30.09.2022, either by renewal or by 7 fresh issuance. Though the petitioner herein was party to the said writ petition. The substantive lis before the writ court was that of non-renewal or non-granting license for operating the bar and restaurant. It was the same issue which travelled to the Division Bench also in Writ Appeal after the writ petition was filed by the defendants which was dismissed. Even before the writ appellate court, the dispute was that of the non-renewal of license beyond 30.09.2022, paragraph No.10 which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph, clearly indicate that what was decided by the writ appellate court was the action on the part of the Excise Department in not granting license to the appellant for operating the bar on the ground of the valid subsisting lease not being in existence.
12. Thus it is clear that the dispute before the High Court and the dispute in the Original Suit were under entirely different contextual backdrop. The point of consideration in the writ petition as also in the writ appeal were entirely different than the issue involved in the instant Original Suit i.e., O.S.No.320 of 2021.
13. The lis before the trial court in the instant case is directly between the landlord and tenant and the lease deed which 8 stands expired on 30.09.2022. The lis before the High Court was between the tenant and State Government i.e., Excise Department, of the State Government, which had refused to grant license beyond 30.09.2022, on the ground of there being no valid lease subsisting.
14. In the factual backdrop, the view taken by the trial court cannot be found fault with. Nor can it be said to be perverse finding or an erroneous judgment in law. Therefore, this Court finds it difficult in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction in interdicting the impugned order.
15. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands rejected.
16. Considering the fact that suit is pending since 2021 and has reached the stage of trial, let the trial court proceed and decide the suit itself on priority basis at the earliest.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date : 26.04.2024 aqs