Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
M/S. VENUS RUBBER WORKS – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR – Respondent
WP/13068/2019
A tenant is not required to obtain a NOC from the landlord for renewal of a trade license if a RAD Suit is pending between the parties in the Small Causes Court.
Headnote:
TRADE LICENSE - NOC FROM LANDLORD - [SUMMARY] The Bombay High Court held that a tenant is not required to obtain a NOC from the landlord for renewal of a trade license if a RAD Suit is pending between the parties in the Small Causes Court. The Court found that the License Officer/Inspector of the Corporation was in collusion with a third party to harass the Petitioner and directed the Corporation to grant the license to the Petitioner on compliance of all other conditions, except the condition of obtaining a NOC from the landlord, until the disposal and outcome of the pending RAD Suit.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a registered partnership firm, had been operating a business in a rented shop since 1969. The Petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Corporation in 1970, which was renewed and revalidated regularly until 2016. In 2016, the Corporation cancelled the Petitioner's license for non-submission of certain documents, including a NOC from the landlord. The Petitioner filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking restoration of the license. The Trial Court rejected the Petitioner's application, holding that the Petitioner had an appropriate remedy before the Corporation. The Petitioner then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Petitioner was not required to obtain a NOC from the landlord for renewal of the trade license as a RAD Suit was pending between the parties in the Small Causes Court. The Court found that the License Officer/Inspector of the Corporation was in collusion with a third party to harass the Petitioner and directed the Corporation to grant the license to the Petitioner on compliance of all other conditions, except the condition of obtaining a NOC from the landlord, until the disposal and outcome of the pending RAD Suit.
Issues: Whether a tenant is required to obtain a NOC from the landlord for renewal of a trade license if a RAD Suit is pending between the parties in the Small Causes Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a tenant is not required to obtain a NOC from the landlord for renewal of a trade license if a RAD Suit is pending between the parties in the Small Causes Court. The Court found that the License Officer/Inspector of the Corporation was in collusion with a third party to harass the Petitioner and directed the Corporation to grant the license to the Petitioner on compliance of all other conditions, except the condition of obtaining a NOC from the landlord, until the disposal and outcome of the pending RAD Suit.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Corporation to grant the license to the Petitioner on compliance of all other conditions, except the condition of obtaining a NOC from the landlord, until the disposal and outcome of the pending RAD Suit.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(b)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the recording and proceedings of L.C. Suit No.402 of 2018 pending before the Hon’ble City Civil Court at Bombay and after going through the legality and validity of the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16th September 2019 passed below Exhibit “7” - Application therein and further be pleased to allow the said Application vide Exhibit “7” and direct Respondent No.1 to not to call upon the Petitioner to produce the documents namely (i) NOC from the landlord, (ii) property UID number and (iii) latest property tax bill and without calling the Petitioner to produce these documents, the Trade License bearing No.761091838 (Old License No.D58686) of the Petitioner be renewed.”
2. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm since 1959. In the year 1969, Petitioner became sub-tenant of the suit shop viz. Shop No.2 situated on the ground floor, Building No.43, JSS Road, Kennedy Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai. The partnership of Petitioner after a series of events between 1969 and 2015 was reconstituted and presently Nilesh Oza, Jyotiben Oza (mother) and Rita Oza (wife) are partners of Petitioner firm. Petitioner carried on business of auto spare parts in the suit shop.
3. Record indicates that Shri. Parekh Estate Pvt. Ltd. is the landlord of building No.43. Record further indicates that one Mr. Baburao Ghadge was the tenant of the suit shop. However, since Mr. Baburao Ghadge sublet the front portion of the suit shop to Petitioner and occupied the rear portion of the suit shop, the landlord filed R.A.E. Suit No.2070 of 1970 against Mr. Baburao Ghadge and Petitioner seeking their eviction from the suit shop. After trial, the suit came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 05.03.1999. Appeal before the Appellate Court also came to be dismissed. The learned Small Causes Court held that Petitioner was not in unlawful possession of the suit shop.
4. The issue in the present Petition however pertains to renewal of license of Petitioner to carry on its business of rubber goods from the suit shop. Originally Petitioner obtained a license from the License Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai i.e. Respondent No.1 (for short "Corporation") on 05.01.1970. The said license was renewed and revalidated regularly until 31.12.2014 by the Corporation.
5. Sometime in the year 2013 Respondent No.2, a neighbour of Petitioner filed a complaint with the Corporation stating that Petitioner's possession of the suit shop is illegal and the rubber goods sold therein are hazardous. Acting on this complaint, Corporation issued a notice dated Nil December 2013 to Petitioner and called upon the Petitioner to produce the latest rent receipts and no-objection certificate from the landlord. The notice was replied by the Petitioner, inter alia, stating that Respondent No.2 was harassing the Petitioner.
6. Corporation issued fresh notice dated 16.01.2014, inter alia, calling upon the Petitioner to produce original rent receipt for verification. Respondent No.2 filed its reply to the same once again stating that the Petitioner was harassed by officers of the Corporation at the instance of Respondent No.2.
7. By letter dated 10.04.2014, Corporation cancelled the license of the Petitioner in view of non submission of the document regarding possession of Petitioner in respect of the suit shop. Petitioner approached the Corporation and after hearing the Petitioner, cancellation of license was revoked and it was renewed on 25.07.2016 for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.07.2016.
8. On 14.03.2016, Petitioner informed the Corporation about the death of his father (partner) and formation of new partnership. Petitioner also enclosed alongwith the letter the old partnership deed, the new partnership deed, Form ‘E’ of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 copy of rent rec
