Madras High Court
M/S Tn Tourism Society Adyar vs The on 25 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.13291 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.13291 of 2025
M/s TN Tourism Society Adyar
rep by its President S.Kalyan Saarang
S/o Sugesan
No.79, Injambakkam East Coast Road
Chennai 600 115 .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Commissioner of Prohibition
and Excise
Office of the Commissioner of
Prohibition and Excise Department
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
2. The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai 600 001
3. Thiru.Prem Kallat .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pertaining to
the impugned order passed by the second respondent in R.C.
No.L3/2744230/2024 dated 24.03.2025 and to quash the same as illegal
arbitrary, ultra-vires.
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
W.P.No.13291 of 2025
For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Karthikeyan for
Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents :: Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh
Special Government Pleader for
R1 & R2
Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for
Mr.T.Karthi for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.03.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The case of the petitioner is that they entered into a lease agreement
with the third respondent on 24.04.2021 and the lease was granted for a
period of seven years. Thus, according to the petitioner, the lease period
will come to an end only in the year 2028. The petitioner is running the
recreation club and wanted to start a FL-2 bar. An application was submitted
before the second respondent and the second respondent, through the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
impugned proceedings dated 24.03.2025, rejected the application on the
ground that the petitioner has to submit the renewal copy of the rental
agreement from his land owner or in the alternative, to find out another place
to run the bar.
4. The case of the third respondent is that the lease agreement is
subject to renewal once in every eleven months and hence, at the end of
eleven months, the lease expires and it continues only if the third respondent
renews the lease. The learned counsel further submitted that the very object
for which the petitioner society was constituted is not to run a bar and that
according to the third respondent, running a bar in the subject property will
result in an illegal activity. It was further brought to the notice of this Court
that already a suit has been filed by the third respondent in O.S.No.34 of
2024 before the Sub Court, Alandur seeking for the relief of delivery of
possession and for damages.
5. Apart from that, another suit has been filed in O.S.No.348 of 2023
against the third respondent seeking for the relief of permanent injunction
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
not to interfere with the business run by the society. Thus, it is clear that the
possession of the petitioner is now a litigious possession. In view of the
above, it has to be seen whether the petitioner will be entitled for a FL-2
license.
6. This issue is no longer res integra and it was considered by this
Court in W.P.No.11330 of 2025 and while disposing of the writ petition by
order dated 17.06.2025, this Court held as follows:-
“9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a
tenant under the 2nd respondent and based on the
earlier agreement, the petitioner was utilising the
property for running a Bar and an FL-2 license was
issued, enabling the petitioner to serve liquor
supplied by the TASMAC in the Bar. The 2nd
respondent has terminated the tenancy and initiated
proceedings before the Small Causes Court, which
is pending in RLTOP No.46 of 2025 and has sought
for the eviction of the petitioner.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
10. Under such circumstances, the earlier No
Objection Certificate (NOC) granted in favour of
the petitioner for the FL-2 license, becomes
questionable.
11. The issue in hand is no longer res integra
and is covered by an earlier judgment of this Court.
The first judgment that can be relied upon is in the
case of S.Mohan Sambasivam vs. The
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,
Chepauk, Chennai reported in (1998) 1 CTC 573
. The second judgment is that of the Hon-ble
Division Bench of this Court in S.Ganesan vs.
Assistant Commissioner Excise, Collectorate,
Chennai and Another reported in (2000) 1 CTC
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
12. The Hon-ble Division Bench after
considering the entire law and issue, has held that in
the absence of the continuation of the lease
agreement and where the possession of the tenant
has become litigious possession, the insistence for
issuance of the license is unsustainable.
13. It was clarified that a tenant holding over
or in juridical possession cannot be equated to that
of a lawful possession, since juridical possession is
a possession protected against wrongful
dispossession, whereas lawful possession means
possession permitted by the landlord to the tenant.
Hence, the protection of law cannot enure in favour
of the tenant whose agreement has been terminated
and whose possession has become litigious by virtue
of an eviction petition filed by the landowner.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
14. In light of the above discussion, the
impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated
28.02.2025, is perfectly in order and there is
absolutely no ground to interfere with the same.”
7. The above judgment will squarely apply to the case in hand. The
very possession of the petitioner has now become a litigious possession and
therefore, the petitioner cannot insist for continuance of FL-2 license.
Therefore, the decision taken by the second respondent through the
impugned proceedings dated 24.03.2025 cannot be faulted and it does not
require the interference of this Court. Insofar as the dispute between the
petitioner and the third respondent, the same will be agitated independently
before the competent Court where the suits are pending. This case confines
itself only to the running of the bar, for which the petitioner has sought for
FL-2 license. The same has been rightly rejected by the second respondent.
If ultimately the petitioner is able to find some other alternative place where
there is no objection, it is left open to the petitioner to workout the remedy
before the second respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
8. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently,
W.M.P.No.14872 of 2025 is closed. No costs.
Index : yes/no 25.06.2025
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
To
1. The Commissioner of Prohibition
and Excise
Office of the Commissioner of
Prohibition and Excise Department
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
2. The District Collector
Chennai District
Chennai 600 001
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ss
25.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:32 pm )
