Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
S. Mohan Sambasivam
Versus
The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chepak, Madras-5 and others
W.P.No.13026 of 1995 and W.M.P.Nos.20861, 20862 of 1995 and 811 of 1997
Decided On : 02-02-1997
LIQUOR LICENSE - CANCELLATION - LAWFUL POSSESSION - RENT CONTROL ACT - APPLICABILITY - OWNERSHIP OR LEASE AGREEMENT - REQUIREMENT - CONSENT OF LANDLORD - NECESSITY - CIVIL COURT ORDERS - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a successful bidder of an IMFL retail shop, obtained a license from the licensing authority after complying with statutory requirements. However, the license was canceled due to the petitioner's failure to secure a lease from the owner of the property and resorting to a wrong procedure by filing fabricated documents. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order, claiming that he had obtained a valid lease from one Vijayalakshmi and that he was a statutory tenant entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Vijayalakshmi denied having given the consent letter and that she was not a tenant during the period when she was alleged to have given the consent. The Court also found that the petitioner did not obtain consent from the actual owners of the property, respondents 5 and 6, and that his possession could not be recognized as lawful without their consent.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's possession of the property was lawful, considering that he did not have a valid lease agreement or the consent of the owners. 2. Whether the petitioner, as a statutory tenant under the Rent Control Act, was entitled to the benefits of the Act, even without the consent of the owners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's possession of the property was not lawful since he did not have a valid lease agreement or the consent of the owners. The Court relied on Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989, which required the production of a lease agreement from the rightful owner of the premises as a prerequisite for granting a license. 2. The Court further held that the petitioner, as a statutory tenant under the Rent Control Act, was not entitled to the benefits of the Act without the consent of the owners. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's initial possession was that of a tenant, and unless there was an order of eviction, he had all the rights as a contractual tenant. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not obtained any lease deed from the rightful owner of the land to continue his possession of the license and that he had violated the rules by misrepresenting facts and producing fake records.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's possession of the property was not lawful and that he was not entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act without the consent of the owners.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No. 106307/94/J2, dated 27. 1995 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in L1/317335/95, dated 19. 1995, confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent mentioned above, and to quash the same.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the successful bidder of IMFL retail shop NO.9/95-96, Dindigul, in terms of Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (for short Rules), in the auction held on 5. 1995, as his bid amount was Rs. 3,33,500 being highest. The auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and he applied under Rule 13 of the Rules in Form VI to the 3rd respondent for the grant of licence with the prescribed fee. The 3rd respondent, the licensing authority also granted licence in Form VII after being satisfied that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements for the grant of licence. It is said that he has been granted licence on 35. 1995 and ever since 6. 1995, he is carrying on retail vending in liquor in the said shop.
.3. The reason for filing this writ petition is that at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the licence granted to him should not be cancelled. The reason for issuing the show cause notice was that the petitioner has not secured the lease from the owner of the property and the petitioner has resorted to a wrong procedure and that too filing fabricated documents. The petitioner gave an explanation denying the allegation and contended that he has obtained a valid lease from one Vijayalakshmi and that he had been in possession for more than six years without objection from any source and that he has been paying rent regularly to the lessor, and even for its period i.e., from 6. 1995 he has obtained a consent letter from the lessor/Vijayalakshmi, and therefore, there is no reason for canceling the licence. Documents have also been filed before the 2nd respondent, the licensing authority to explain the case. But the licensing authority did not believe the case of the petitioner, mainly for the reason that Vijayalakshmi, who is alleged to have given the consent letter has denied having given such consent and also explained that she is not a tenant during that period, when she was alleged to have given the consent. Since Vijayalakshmi denied having given consent and the petitioner has also not obtained consent from respondents 5 and 6, the licensing authority held that his possession is not lawful and consequently directed the cancellation of the licence already granted.
.4. The matter was taken up in appeal before the 1st respondent, who also confirmed the said finding and dismissed the appeal. Against that order the petitioner himself filed W.P.No.12775 of 1995 to quash the proceedings. This Court declined to entertain the writ petition, since the statutory revisional remedy is available. The order of this Court is dated 19. 1995. After the dismissal of the said writ petition by this Court, the petitioner filed a revision on 19. 1995, before the 4th respondent and also moved an application for stay.
The 4th respondent, did not pass any order and at the same time he was being threatened to close the business. At the time when the revision was filed before the 4th respondent counsel for the petitioner was requested to meet the Secretary on 19. 1995, who in turn directed to contact the Additional Secretary (Prohibition and Excise). The Additional Secretary expressed his inability to pass any orders on the stay application, since the file will have to be circulated to the Chief Minister, who was in charge of the portfolio of Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner and his counsel approached the Chief Minister through the Special Officer. Though the petitioner h
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
