SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Raviraja Pandian, J.
G.Ramanathan
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu
S.A.No.1281 of 1986
Decided On : 30 March 2000

Advocates:
R.Mohan, for Appellant.
Ravi, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent.

Lessee cannot claim refund of deposit on his discontinuing business.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (X of 1937), Secs.56-A and 56-B - Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules (1981), Rules 14 and 20 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1983 - State can part with right to trade in liquor for a consideration - Lessee cannot claim refund of deposit on his discontinuing business -Secs.56-A and 56-B put absolute bar on Court to grant such relief.

JUDGMENT: The above appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.76 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur dismissing the relief prayed for by the appellants therein.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

3. The case of the appellant as discussed in the plaint averments is briefly stated as follows: The appellant-plaintiff was the successful bidder for the sale of arrack in retail through arrack shop number 4, Thanjavur Taluk for the Excise year 1983-84. The salient features of the lease are, viz., that the monthly rental payable by the plaintiff-lessee to the defendant-lessor shall be Rs.96,000 that the plaintiff shall deposit with the lessor three months rental amount and that the lease shall be with reference to the arrack shop No.4 to be situated in Adakara Street, Thanjavur Town and municipal limits. After deposit of the three months rental, at the rate of Rs.96,000 per mensem in July, 1983 with the defendant-lessor, the plaintiff commenced their business at T.S.No.526, Adakara Street, Thanjavur on and from 29.7.1983. For the three days of sales in July, 1983 viz., 29th, 30th and 31st, the plaintiff has remitted the proportionate rate to the Government. The business was carried on and maintained through August, 1983 and was closed by 31.8.1983. The plaintiff is liable to pay rent for August, 1983 and he has not carried on business from 1.9.1983 for which he cannot be made liable to the Government.

4. It is further averred by the appellant- plaintiff that during the conduct of his business in August, 1983, the respondent Department has been totally non-co-operative in facilitating the appellant- plaintiff to thrive in their trade. On the other hand, the respondent- defendant had been encouraging and conniving and indirectly indulging in attempts to cripple the business of the appellant. The branch shop was run unauthorisedly by the licensee of arrack shop No.5 within the territorial limits or serving area allotted to the appellant and similar was conduct of the licensee of arrack shop No.6 which resulted in very unhealthy competition and the appellant was not in a position to indent and take delivery of the full quota ear-marked for his shop and therefore his sale in the month of August, 1983 resulted in poor sales without the appellant availing of full quota supply earmarked from the Government. The appellant- plaintiff approached the defendant authorities to close down illegal and unauthorised activities by the other licensees. By the middle of September, 1983, the appellant- plaintiff was not having any supply even from the beginning of the month and the Government also having stopped supply, the appellant makes successive approaches to the officials of the Excise Department, Revenue Department and also Police Department, but met with no response.

5. Even the representation to the Excise Commissioner for closure and removal of the unauthorised branch sale, ended with no result and on the other hand, the appellant received a communication dated 25.9.1983 from the licensing authority calling upon the plaintiff to pay their monthly rentals from August, 1983 and in default that his lease would be cancelled in spite of the fact that the respondent had stopped supply even much earlier viz., from 1.9.1983 onwards. The appellant’s representation to the Collector of Thanjavur also met with the same result.

6. The appellant, as a lessee, is entitled to have assurance from the lessor for legitimate and peaceful business without prejudice or hindrance by any unauthorised and illegal competition within his territorial limit. In this case, the Government had been openly encouraging illegal and unauthorised sales through branches, close to the appellant’s shop or his territorial limits. The appellant was forced not only to incurloss but also closed down his shop being unable to resist unhealthy competition in the trade, done with the connivance of the Government. In such circumstances, the

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top