Does Section 64A of the Abkari Act, impliedly, require a licencee under the Abkari Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules to obtain the consent of the owner of the premises for renewal of the license to run a Bar attached restaurant, where the licensee is not the owner of the premises? This is the question that has been posed for consideration in this case.

2. Petitioners, who are the owners of a building situated in Palarivattom, which had been leased out to the fourth respondent for conduct of a bar attached hotel, seeks a direction to the licencing authorities under the Abkari Act and the State to ensure that the renewal of FL3 licence is not done without obtaining a written consent of the landlords and also to cancel the renewal if the license has already been renewed. The contention has been raised with reference to Section 64A of the Abkari Act which, in certain circumstances, provides for the owner of a land, building or other premises to be prosecuted for an offence there under, if he permits any person to use such premises for the manufacture, sale or storage or sale of liquor, in contravention of the Act.

3. The case of the petitioners is that by a lease deed executed on 19.5.1998 and thereafter on 33.2005 the lessee had been permitted to run a bar, restaurant and a lodge for a period of 12 months. The lease was being renewed from time to time, the last renewal was with effect from 19.5.2006 to 18.5.2007 in relation to the first lease deed and with effect from 33.2006 to 30.3.2007 in relation to the second lease deed. There has been no renewal of the lease thereafter, but the tenant has continued by holding over.

4. It is alleged that the land lords require the premises for their purpose and reference is made in this regard to the second petitioner who allegedly requires the same to set up a clinic of her own. Reference is also made to requirement of office space for the petitioners. Petitioners have instituted Rent Control Petitions before the Rent Control Board, Eranakulam. The same are being prosecuted.

5. It is alleged that some of the workers employed by the licensee, the fourth respondent, have been convicted for certain abkari offence, which has in turn given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that the premises which have been leased out are not being used in strict conformity with legal provisions. Petitioners therefore, have sent Ext.P3 representation to the licensing authorities requiring them to refrain from renewing the FL3 licence except with their consent. It is specifically pointed out in Ext.P3 that the land lords have come across instances where persons employed by the licensee have been convicted for offences under the Abkari Act. Therefore, the land lords apprehend that they themselves might be prosecuted for the offence under Section 64A of the Abkari Act. In these circumstances, as responsible owners of the premises, they are entitled to take such steps as are necessary to see that the user of the leased premises does not result in contravention of law. They are also entitled to see that the premises are not used by anybody in such a manner that it results in the contravention of the provisions of any law, including the Abkari Act. One legitimate step taken by the land lords, according to the petitioners, is to withdraw the consent of the land lords for user of the premises and ensure that a licence, which enables the user of the premises to conduct a bar attached restaurant, is not renewed, and thereby obviate the possibility of a contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

6. Writ petition has been filed broadly raising the above contentions and the following reliefs have been sought for.

(i).Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that renewal of the FL3 License granted to the 4th respondent herein, and bearing No.98/2006-07 (subsequently renewed on the basis of the interim order dated 23.2007 in W.P.(C). 9535/2007 is not done without obta