ABDUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does Section 64A of the Abkari Act, impliedly, require a licencee under the Abkari Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules to obtain the consent of the owner of the premises for renewal of the license to run a bar attached restaurant, where the licensee is not the owner of the premises This is the question that has been posed for consideration in this case.

(2.) Petitioners, who are the owners of a building situated in Palarivattom, which had been leased out to the fourth Respondent for conduct of a bar attached hotel, seeks a direction to the licencing authorities under the Abkari Act and the State to ensure that the renewal of FL3 licence is not done without obtaining a written consent of the landlords and also to cancel the renewal if the license has already been renewed. The contention has been raised with reference to Section 64A of the Abkari Act which, in certain circumstances, provides for the owner of a land, building or other premises to be prosecuted for an offence thereunder, if he permits any person to use such premises for the manufacture, sale or storage or sale of liquor, in contravention of the Act.

(3.) The case of the Petitioners is that by a lease deed executed on 19-5-1998 and thereafter on 31-3-2005 the lessee had been permitted to run a bar, restaurant and a lodge for a period of 12 months. The lease was being renewed from time to time, the last renewal was with effect from 19-5-2006 to 18-5-2007 in relation to the first lease deed and with effect from 31-3-2006 to 30-3-2007 in relation to the second lease deed. There has been no renewal of the lease thereafter, but the tenant has continued by holding over.