M/S. Cafe Lilliput Bar And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5166 Tel

                      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