S GANESAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXCISE COLLECTORATE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ appeals directed against the common order made by the learned single Judge on 9.7.1998 in W.P.Nos.5071, 6809,6963,7158,7571,7454,7470,7483,7728,7724,7629,7963,8118,8142, 8235,8236 and 8409 of 1998, the question raised is regarding the validity and scope of Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') in so far as that Rule requires the person, in whose favour the sale of the privilege of vending INdian made Foreign Liquor in retail is confirmed, to produce a certificate in Form No. III from the Excise Officers, or an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Tahsildar duly authorised by the Collector regarding the suitability and also ownership or lease of the building for not less than a year of the shop from where he intends to sell liquor, and the further requirement in that Rule that a xerox copy of the document showing that the auction purchaser himself is the owner of the building or a xerox copy of the lease agreement executed with the landlord of the building wherein the proposed shop is to be located be produced.

(2.) ALL the appellants herein are tenants who either do not have a subsisting lease agreement in their favour, or whose lease agreement do not permit them to carry on trade in liquor in that premises. The writ petitions from which these writ appeals arise had been filed by a tenant, who, had challenged the validity of this Rule to the extent indicated above) and by certain other tenants, who, though retaining possession of the premises claimed only the status of statutory tenants, and did not have subsisting lease agreements in their favour, as also by also by landlords who were aggrieved by the grant of licence to the persons in occupation of the premises, and whose legal status would only be that of statutory tenants, and not contractual tenants.

(3.) THE learned singles Judge, in an elaborate judgment, in which he has exhaustively considered the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, as also of the Rules and the applicable decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, held that Rule 13(1) of the Rules is valid, and that the reference therein to the lease agreement requires a prospective licensee to produce a subsisting lease agreement with the landlord and in the absence of such lease deed, no licence could be granted by the authorities for running a shop for the retail vend of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in such premised. It was also held by the learned single Judge that in cases where the landlord expressly stipulated that the premises is not to be used for trade in liquor, licence under Rule 13(1) of the Rules could not possibly be granted.