IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20 .01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.22489 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 Mohamed Raffiq .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Wellington Contonment Board Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Wellington, The Nilgiris. 2. Gunasekaran .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent herein comprised in Ref.No.Trade Licence/X/HS dated 27.09.2010, quash the said impugned notice of the first respondent, and consequently, directing the first respondent to issue renewal of trade licence to the petitioner, pertaining to his shop at premises No.D.VI/468, Wellington Barracks, Coonoor, Nilgiris on receipt of renewal fees without insisting on production of no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent, who has not established his title in the manner known to law. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin For R1 : M/s.King & Partridge For R2 : Mr.C.A.Diwakar O R D E R The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for quashing of the impugned notice, issued and for directing first respondent to grant trade licence to his shop at premise No.D.VI/468, Wellington Barracks, Coonoor, Nilgiris on receipt of renewal fees, without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was a tenant under under Mrs.Rathinammal in respect of premises, since 1957. She died in the year 1970, leaving behind no legal heirs in Class-I. One Sugumaran, Class-II heir of Mrs.Rathinammal, started collecting rent as the landlord, who also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued no objection certificate for renewal of trade licence for carrying out small trade in the premises. 3. It is not in dispute that the licence has been renewed / granted to him on yearly basis. When the petitioner applied for licence now, the first respondent returned the application, on the ground that the second respondent has claimed over possession of property. Therefore, without no objection certificate from him, no licence can be issued. In view of the rejection of the request of renewal, impugned notice was issued, directing the petitioner to stop business in the premises, for want of the licence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the action of the first respondent in not renewing licence as also impugned order, on the plea that the action is totally arbitrary and amount to colourable exercise of power at the instance of second respondent. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question as to who is legal representative of late Mrs.Rathinammal and thus entitled to possession, is the subject matter of the Civil Suit, pending between landlord of the petitioner and the second respondent. 6. The stand taken by the first respondent was that the second respondent is the registered lessee with the first respondent, therefore, in view of objection raised by the second respondent, licence could not be renewed. 7. The stand taken by the second respondent is that he got the lessee right from the Estate Officer, therefore, is entitled to run the business. The petitioner cannot claim any licence without his permission or against his wishes. 8. On consideration, I find force in the contention of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner commenced business in the premises in the year 1957. The original lessor died in the year 1970 and thereafter, the petitioner's licence was renewed / granted on year to year basis till 2007. The petitioner is, therefore, in occupation of premises under valid tenancy's right. His right to continue in possession of the premise till evicted by due process of law, cannot be disputed or challenged. There is no provision under statutory rule or regulations, under which, no objection is required from the owner of the lessee, before licence is renewed to run the business. 9. The possession of the petitioner was legal. Admittedly, there is no order of eviction by any competent Court / authority. The action of the first respondent, on the face of it therefore, is arbitrary and amount to colourable exercise of power, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of renewal of licence, without insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. 11. However, this order shall not be taken to, in any way, debar the second respondent to take his remedy in accordance with law to seek possession of property. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To The Chief Executive Officer, Wellington Contonment Board Wellington, The Nilgiris. 1 cc To M/s.King & Partridge, Advocate, SR.4347 1 cc To Mr.J.Franklin, Advocate, SR.4363 1 cc To Mr.C.A.Diwakar, Advocate, SR.4404 W.P. No. 22489 of 2010 tej(co) pmk.3.2.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/