1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION Z. NO.659/2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO.13330/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4229/2010 (D) Shri Narendra s/o Laxmanrao Padole ...Versus... State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri A.R. Wagh, Adv. for applicant] [Shri S.M. Bhagde, AGP for respdt. nos.1 and 2] CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 09.11.2011. Heard learned Counsel for applicant and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Looking to the nature of controversy and order which is proposed to pass, delay of seven days in filing letters patent appeal is condoned. Office to register the appeal. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO.13330/2011 The petitioner/appellant is legal heir of landlord who let out the premises and it is the case of the appellant that the person to whom the premises were so let out thereafter unauthorizedly inducted respondent no.3 in those premises. 2 Respondent no.3 is running eating house (Bar and Restaurant) in those premises. By the impugned order before the learned Single Judge, the Police Commissioner has renewed the licence for that business. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has not given no objection which is statutorily required for obtaining such licence or for its renewal. He further states that there is no rent receipt issued by the appellant in favour of respondent no.3. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 points out that eating house has been going on in those premises since last about 10 years. It is apparent hat after death of original landlord the present appellant claims to have become the landlord as legal heir. Thus, merely because there is no no objection given by the appellant - legal heir to respondent no.3, the Police Commissioner could not have refused to renew the licence. Learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the controversy. The appellant has to seek eviction of respondent no.3 in accordance with law. We do not find any merit in the present letters patent appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE ssw