A lease created in litigation cannot confer lawful possession; owner consent is essential for license renewal.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, ACJ.

1. The appellant is the sixth respondent in Writ Petition No. 30238 of 2023. The said writ petition was filed by the sixth respondent in this appeal praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in MA5/9452/2023 dated 21.09.2023 of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to renew the FL-2 License issued to the writ petitioner.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No. 30238 of 2023, it was stated that the writ petitioner is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, registered on 05.09.1994 and from that date, they have taken up the property bearing Door No.6, Kushkumar Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034 on lease from the erstwhile owners. The writ petitioner also obtained FL 2 license from the third respondent and running a bar in their club premises and also a permit room from 1994 itself. It is further stated that the writ petitioner club has more than 1500 members on their roll. It is also stated that the lease was periodically renewed and as per the registered lease agreement dated 17.10.2018, registered as document No. 784 of 2018 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Chennai Central Joint - II, executed by Mr. Basantkumar and others, the lease rent was Rs.35,000/- per month. The lease was for a period of ten years from 01.10.2018 to 30.09.2028. According to the writ petitioner, in the lease agreement, there is a specific clause to the effect that in the event of transfer of scheduled property by purchase or mortgage, the lease shall stand attorned in the name of the transferee/purchaser on the same terms and conditions as contained in the renewed lease deed. It is stated that subsequent to the lease agreement, the writ petitioner had spent enormous amount for putting up a building in their club premises. The writ petitioner further states that they came to know that in the year 1980, an agreement for sale of the aforesaid property was entered into by the owner of the property with the sixth respondent in the writ petition for Rs.5,40,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1 lakh as advance. Since a sale deed was not executed, the sixth respondent in the writ petition filed a suit for specific performance and it culminated in an order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, pursuant to which the sixth respondent deposited Rs.1.25 crores on 18.08.2021 before the Registrar General of this Court.

3. As far as the currency of FL2 license No.7/2002-2003 is concerned, the license was periodically renewed on 1st April of every year till 31st March of the succeeding year. Similarly, during March 2023, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking renewal of FL2 license and it was kept pending. While so, the writ petitioner received a notice in writ petition No. 17387 of 2023 filed by the sixth respondent before this Court, in which a counter affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the licensing authority sent a communication dated 21.09.2023 for temporary stoppage of supply of liquor to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereafter came to know that on the basis of objection given by the sixth respondent, the communication dated 21.09.2023 was sent by the second respondent suspending the license issued to the writ petitioner. In the communication dated 21.09.2023, it was stated that the writ pet