Judgment :- 1. One Pals Enterprise has filed the application alleging that the firm Pals Enterprise is a partnership firm, with partners K. Mohideen Kutty and D. Prabhakar along with V. Udayasuriyan, who is the deponent of the affidavit. The firm is a registered one. It is also alleged that the tenancy in respect of the premises bearing door No. 11, Stringers Street, Chennai-1 was transferred by the respondent-A.G.O.T. in favour of the applicant by order dated 20.3.2000. The entire arrears amounting to a sum of Rs. 5,64,000/- at the rate of Rs. 7,000/-p.m. from 1.9.1998 to 31.3.2000 has been remitted by way of demand draft dated 27.3.2000. It is also alleged that V. Udaya-suriyan-applicant, participated in an auction iri respect of IMFL Retail shop No. 113 for Division No. 30 of Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk and was declared as a successful bidder and remitted the required sum on 14.1.2000. It is also alleged that since suitable shop was not available, he could not do the business. To obtain FL-I licence from the concerned authority, no objection certificate from the owner of the premises is necessary and as such, the applicant is before this Court, praying to issue suitable direction to the respondent-A.G.O.T to issue N.O.C. in its favour so as to get FL-I licence to run the trade. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-A.G.O.T, denying the allegations as alleged. It is submitted that the property in question belongs to Rao Bahadur V. Thiruvengadathan Chetty Estate and the Estate is under the control of A.G./O.T. and one K. Mohindeen Kutty was the tenant, carrying on Hotel business under the name and style of “Ranjitham Restaurant”. The said K. Mohideen Kutty, by letter dated 16.3.2000 intimated that since his hotel business carried on by him required additional investment, he intended to take one D. Prabhakar as a partner agreeing to pay enhanced rent and also stated that the tenancy shall be in the name of partnership under the name and style, of ‘Pals Enterprise’. In the counter it is stated that it was found in the partnership deed, one other person by name V. Udayuasuriyan had also been cited as a third partner, stating the nature of partnership business as for running the restaurant and/or retail trading in all varieties of goods including IMFL and such other business. In the counter it is stated that it was found in the partnership deed, one other person by name V. Udayuasuriyan had also been cited as a third partner, stating the nature of partnership business as for running the restaurant and/or retail trading in all varieties of goods including IMFL and such other business. It is submitted by letter dated 7.4.2000, the respondent stated that tenancy had been transferred in the name of Pals Enterprise with effect from 20.3.2000, that K. Mohideen Kutty and D. Prabhakar are the partners and tenancy had been granted only for doing existing hotel business and not for running any liquor shop. It is also stated that no licence can be granted to run a liquor shop as it is against the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. It is also mentioned that the said V. Udayasooriyan had been a successful bidder from 14.1.2000, which is much prior to transfer of tenancy dated 20.3.2000, and therefore, he cannot claim of any right seeking N.O.C. for this Trust Property, which is under the management A.G.O.T. So far as the allegation regarding lease of a property for Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, it is submitted that the said premises was granted to I.I.D.C as per orders of this Court in Application No. 435 of 1987 dated 25.9.1987 for 30 years lease, but not for the purpose of running any liquor shop, and that apart, it is nothing to do with the trade of IMFL. It is submitted that under such circumstances, the application deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and also for A.G./O.T. and perused the materials on record. From the facts culled out, it is seen that the property in question was rented out to one K. Mohideen Kutty and another person D. Prabhakar was included in it with effect from 20.3.2000, with the name and style of ‘Pals Enterprises’. But now, one V. Udayasuriyan, is seeking no objection certificate, alleging to be a partner of the firm as per the deed dated 5.1.2000 as a thir d person, alleging that he was declared as a successful bidder in an auction on 14.1.2000, that he deposited a huge sum for running retail business in IMFL. But now, one V. Udayasuriyan, is seeking no objection certificate, alleging to be a partner of the firm as per the deed dated 5.1.2000 as a thir d person, alleging that he was declared as a successful bidder in an auction on 14.1.2000, that he deposited a huge sum for running retail business in IMFL. Now, he seeks N.O.C. from the owner of the premises, which is a required for obtaining FL-I permission from the authority concerned. To my mind, firm cannot be permitted to do business on liquor in the premises which is under the control of the A.G./O.T. The applicant has no right to ask N.O.C. from the owner of the property, more particularly, when the building is under the control of A.G./O.T. More so, in the circumstances of the case, granting such permission is not befitting to achieve the object sought for. On overall consideration, I am of the view, that the applicant cannot take advantage of the permission granted by this Court to T.T.D.C. at the place situated other than this place. Partnership Deed of the three persons has never existed earlier nor A.G.O.T. has approved. A cursory perusal of the partnership deed produced before this Court, reveals that it will not give any right to the applicant. Admittedly, the premises in question was initially given on ease, for running hotel business only. Now, by adding another partner, in addition to already existing persons, this applicant tries to get NOC from A.G.O.T. When this applicants name does not find place in the acknowledgment of Registration of Finn dated 29.3.2000, he cannot have any right, and in such circumstances, to grant such permission as sought for, in my view, will certainly defeat the object of the Trust. It cannot be brushed aside that the paramount consideration of the court is to see the interest of the trust alone, though by adopting another procedure, as prayed for its will fetch more money i.e., by enhancing further rent as stated in the affidavit. I am not at all inclined to grant such permission as sought for in the application. 4. For the reasons stated, I reject the prayer as sought for. This application is dismissed. No costs.