Co-ownership constitutes ownership under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, and a co-owner is entitled to obtain a liquor license under Rule 13.

1. In both these writ petitions, parties are same; facts are also similar. The latter writ petition had to be filed since the relief sought for in the earlier writ petition became inappropriate.

2. In W.P. No. 7478 of 1998 the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 4 from issuing licence tp the fifth respondent to run an IMFL retail shop at the premises bearing Nos. 82, 83, 83-A and 83-B, E. M. Muthukumaraswamy Road, Erode opposite to Railway Station.

3. It is seen that the fifth respondent obtained licence in spite of the interim order and that necessitated the filing of the subsequent writ petition where in the relief sought for is to revoke the licence granted to the fifth respondent to run IMFL shop.

4. In the affidavit it is stated that the property originally belonged to one Kettimuthu Gounder who died in the year 1978 leaving behind the petitioners who are his widow and daughter and also a son by name Rajamanickam. The son also died in the year 1988, leaving his widow and a posthumous daughter by name Annapoorani and the mother (1st petitioner).

5. The building which is the subject matter of the writ petition was taken on lease by the fifth respondents father, for running liquor shop. It is the case of the petitioners that without their knowledge, the widow of the deceased son Rajamanickam along with the minor child sold their share of the property to the fifth respondent who is running the liquor shop occupying the entire building. It is their further case that lease in favour of the fifth respondents father still continues and he is paying rent for their share. According to them, the fifth respondent is not entitled tp run a liquor shop he is neither a tenant nor an exclusive owner and without the permission of the petitioners, the authorities acted illegally in issuing licence to him. It is further said that at any rate, the petitioners being the major shareholders are entitled to prevent fractional sharers from utilising the entire building for their own convenience. Under Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, the successful bidder has to produce a lease deed executed by him with the landlord for a period not less than a year. In this case, the fifth respondent is neither a lessee nor an exclusive owner.

6. It is further submitted that even before auction, the petitioners informed the authorities not to grant licence to the fifth respondent and in spite of the interim order that was passed in the earlier writ petition, licence was granted to the fifth respondent. This is an act of collusion between the authorities and the fifth respondent and therefore, the licence already granted is liable to be revoked by the Court.

7. When the matter came for admission, I directed both these writ petitions to be posted in the motion list. I further directed that since I have already issued an order of injunction in the earlier writ petition and in spite of the same, the authorities have issued licence the same cannot be recognised by this Court, Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to remove all stocks in the building and report this matter to the Court, after closing the shop. I also directed compliance by the respondents within 24 hours. Pursuant to my subsequent direction the shop has been closed. Thereafter, the fifth respondent has filed an application to vacate the interim order and also filed a counter affidavit in the main writ petition.

8. It is submitted that the counter affidavit filed in the latter writ petition may be treated as a common counter affidavit for both the writ petitions. The main contention raised by the fifth respondent is that he has purchased 1/3rd share from the lawful owner and the relationship between the petitioners and the fifth respondent is that of co-owners. His father still continues to be the tenant in record, to the share which he has not purchased and the proportionate rent is being collected by the owner. He is occupying