Telangana High Court
M/S. Cafe Lilliput Bar And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 11 October, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
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
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
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.
2022 LawSuit (Del) 1315
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
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.
