YSUFBHAI NOORMOHMAD MUKHI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is running a restaurant, in the name and style of "Pleasant Hotel", which is situated at village Markarba, Taluka, City, Ahmedabad. The said premises is situated in Survey No.42 of the aforesaid village. The petitioner has taken the aforesaid premises on rent from his original landlord, i.e. respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner had taken the aforesaid premises on rent for the purpose of running a restaurant. The petitioner, after taking the premises on rent from the aforesaid purpose, applied for necessary licence and for that purpose, application was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Taluka, City Ahmedabad, and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad, granted licence to the petitioner for running the said restaurant, by his order dated 27.4.1979. The said licence was given to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 33(1)(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The said licence was therafter renewed from time to time. Thereafter, in the year 1989, the petitioner applied for certification of registration and the District Magistrate issued the said Certificate of Registration from 1989 to 31st December, 1994. The said Certificate of Registration is also annexed by the petitioner at page 10 of the compilation (Annexure 'B').

(2.) The petitioner, subsequently, applied for renewal of the aforesaid registration for a further period of four years, i.e. from 1995 to 1999. The petitioner gave necessary application after paying required fees for the same. The petitioner also gave specific application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Taluka, City, Ahmedabad, vide application dated 31/01/1995. However, the Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the said application for renewal of the said licence by an order dated 6.2.1997 on the ground that the landlord of the premises objected for such renewal. The petitioner was also asked to produce N.A. permission order, but since the petitioner was not the owner, naturally, he could not produce the aforesaid document of N.A. permission, which is granted by the Competent Authority.

(3.) The said decision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and the said appeal was numbered as Appeal No.5 of 1997. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After the said remand, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad, passed a fresh order dated 6.2.1997, which is at Annexure 'D', page 12 of the compilation. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedabad, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for renewal on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to show that permission was granted to him for commercial use at the time of getting N.A. permission.