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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
