K. Poruthammal v. The Assistant Director Drugs Control
2008-04-10
P.JYOTHIMANI
body2008
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment : The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.09.2002 and the consequential licence issued on 02.09.2002 in respect of M/s.Balaji Medicals at No.239/18-C Muthurenga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai 600 045. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing Door No.18-C, Muthurenga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai 600 045, and the writ petition is filed by the petitioners through their Power Agent. The petitioners have purchased the above said property under sale deed dated 22.08.1997. Prior to their purchase, the third respondent was a tenant under the petitioners vendor. In the premises, the third respondent was carrying on the business of pharmaceutical and druggist under the name and style, M/s.Balaji Medicals. After the purchase of property by the petitioners, they continued the tenancy with the third respondent and receiving rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month through the previous owner. 2(a). According to the petitioners, since the third respondent stopped payment of rent from September,1999, they have filed RCOP.No.9 of 2000 on the file of learned Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tambaram, for eviction against the third respondent. The petitioners have also filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for direction to the third respondent to deposit the rent and that was ordered on 011. 2001, directing the third respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent from September,1999 to October 2001, within two weeks and posted the RCOP on 211. 2001. Since the third respondent has not complied with the said conditional order, consequential order of eviction was passed on 012. 2001. 2(b). It was against the said order of eviction, the third respondent filed an appeal. For the purpose of carrying on the business of Druggist & Pharmacist, the third respondent requires licence under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act read with Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioners, for obtaining such licence, the third respondent must prove that there is a valid rental agreement, in case where the licensee is not the owner of the premises. That apart, an approved plan in respect of the premises must be produced. After the purchase of the premises by the petitioners, the tenancy in favour of the third respondent was not renewed. Even otherwise, such tenancy was terminated by notice dated 210. 1999.
That apart, an approved plan in respect of the premises must be produced. After the purchase of the premises by the petitioners, the tenancy in favour of the third respondent was not renewed. Even otherwise, such tenancy was terminated by notice dated 210. 1999. In those circumstances, the petitioners have made representation to the first and second respondents about the factual position of termination of tenancy, etc. and requested the first and second respondents to cancel the licence or refrain from granting licence or renewing the licence to the third respondent for running the Pharmacy business. 2(c). Since their representation was not considered, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23053 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 16.07.2002, has directed the first and second respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 110. 2001 and 10.01.2002 and to pass orders after giving opportunity to the third respondent also. The petitioners have also enclosed the copy of order of this Court referred to above to the first and second respondents along with their representations and the first and second respondents have not passed any orders. Again, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24503 of 2004 for direction to the first and second respondents to pass orders pursuant to the enquiry conducted on 27.08.2002. That writ petition was again disposed of on 012. 2004 with direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders within two weeks. 2(d). It was thereafter, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 18.01.2005, forwarded a copy of the letter dated 03.01.2005 said to have been given by the deponent of this writ petition, who is the power agent of the petitioners and a copy of the proceedings dated 02.09.2002 by the first respondent, Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Zone IV, Tambaram West, stated to have been passed pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23053 of 2002. However, the copy of the said proceedings dated 02.09.2002 of the first respondent was never served on the petitioners, but the same was communicated along with the proceedings dated 03.01.2005, after the directions issued in the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioners on 012. 2004 in WP.No.24503 of 2004. 2(e). Under the impugned order, the first respondent has overruled the objections for the renewal of licence for the period from 01.01.2002 to 312.
2004 in WP.No.24503 of 2004. 2(e). Under the impugned order, the first respondent has overruled the objections for the renewal of licence for the period from 01.01.2002 to 312. 2006 by observing that the order of eviction passed in RCOP.No.9 of 2000, is pending appeal before the Sub-Court, Chenglepat and therefore, the matter is sub judice and also further stating that as per Rule 64 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the authority has to be satisfied only with regard to adequacy of space and whether the premises is equipped with proper storage accommodation for preserving the properties of drugs and the third respondent has satisfied all the requirements as per the Rules. 2(f). The petitioners challenged the said order of the first respondent on various grounds, including that the same is arbitrary; that it is ultra vires the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules; that the Licensing Authority must be satisfied that the licensee is in lawful occupation and mere possession does not entitle the occupant to have the licence; that the Rules and Act make it mandatory that the licensee should satisfy that the possession of the property is lawful and the rental agreement must be produced. Adding to that, the petitioners have also stated that the third respondent in collusion with the vendor of the petitioners has also arranged to cancel the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners and the third respondent has proposed to purchase the said shop apart from certain other portions. Against the cancellation of the sale deed, the petitioners have also preferred a writ petition and there has been an order of injunction restraining the third respondent from further alienation. 3. Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the unreported judgement of the Supreme Court dated 210. 2005 made in Civil Appeal No.1027 of 2005 (C.Albert Morris vs. K.Chandrasekaran & Others) to substantiate his contention that litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. The Supreme Court in its turn has relied upon its earlier judgment in M.C.Chockalingam & Others vs. V.Manickavasagam & Others ( 1974 (1) SCC 48 ). 4. The first and second respondents have filed their counter affidavit. While the first respondent is the Licensing Authority as per Rule 49A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in short, "the Rules"), the second respondent is the Controlling Authority as per Rule 50A.
4. The first and second respondents have filed their counter affidavit. While the first respondent is the Licensing Authority as per Rule 49A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (in short, "the Rules"), the second respondent is the Controlling Authority as per Rule 50A. According to the first and second respondents, the third respondent is one of the partners of the concern M/s.Balaji Medicals at No.18-C, Muthurenga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai 600 045, Mr.E.Ganesan and Mr.R.Chandrasekaran being other two partners. The said concern was granted licence in Form Nos.20, 21, 20B and 21B dated 16.09.1996. 4(a). On 212. 2001, M/s.Balaji Medicals have submitted application for renewal of licence with relevant documents prescribed under the Rules. A legal notice was received from Mr.R.Thiagarajan, dated 07.01.2001, stating that the licence should not be renewed to third respondent, since his clients (petitioners herein) have purchased the property on 22.08.1997 from R.Ronald Santhakumar and others and they have also initiated rent control proceedings by filing petition for eviction against third respondent in RCOP.No.9 of 2000. By further notices dated 112. 2001 and 10.01.2002, Mr.P.Gopalan, Advocate informed the first and second respondents that an order of eviction was passed in RCOP.No.9 of 2000 dated 012. 2001, dismissing the third respondents petition to extend the time for payment of rental arrears and he also requested not to grant licence to the third respondent. 4(b). The third respondent has produced a copy of appeal filed by him before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in RCA.Nos.6 and 7 of 2002, in which he prayed to set aside the order passed in MP.No.70 of 2000 in RCOP.No.9 of 2000 dated 012. 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Tambaram and the said appeal is still pending. When it is admitted that the petitioners have filed WP.No.23053 of 2002 before this Court for direction against respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of their representations dated 112. 2001 and 10.01.2002 and the same was ordered on 16.07.2002, it is the case of respondents 1 and 2 that pursuant to the order stated above, the first respondent has called the petitioners and the third respondent on 27.08.2002 and heard them. After hearing both parties, order was passed by the first respondent on 02.09.2002, renewing the licence of the third respondent for the period from 01.01.2002 to 312. 2006. 4(c).
After hearing both parties, order was passed by the first respondent on 02.09.2002, renewing the licence of the third respondent for the period from 01.01.2002 to 312. 2006. 4(c). In the second writ petition filed by the petitioners, viz., W.P.No.24503 of 2004, by order dated 012. 2004, this Court has directed the first respondent to deal with the matter in the manner known to law and the decision arrived at on the representations of the petitioners shall be communicated to them within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since the decision was already arrived at on 02.09.2002 as per the direction in W.P.No.23053 of 2002, the copy of the said order dated 02.09.2002 was communicated to the petitioners on 17.01.2005 as per the direction in WP.No.24503 of 2004. 4(d). According to the respondents 1 and 2, as per Rule 64, before granting or renewing licence, ownership of the premises is not a statutory requirement. As per Rule 65A, it is only the additional information to be furnished by the applicant. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, the order has been passed under Rule 64 of the Rules in relation to the directions of this Court stated above. 5. The third respondent in the counter affidavit has submitted that she has been running the medical shop in the name and style, "Balaji Medicals" from September,1986 and she was originally a tenant under Ronald Santhakumar and her family members are the owners of the property and the third respondent purchased the property under a registered document dated 20.05.2004. According to third respondent, she was not aware of the tussle between the petitioners and her vendor Ronald Santhakumar in the Court of law. According to the third respondent, the said Ronald Santhakumar has never given any letter, including the transfer of property in favour of the petitioners and ultimately, the shop has been sold to the third respondent by him and his family on 20.05.2004 under a registered sale deed. 5(a). It is also the case of the third respondent that in the meantime the petitioners have filed RCOP.No.9 of 2000, claiming the third respondent as their tenant and eviction was granted in the petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 on 012.
5(a). It is also the case of the third respondent that in the meantime the petitioners have filed RCOP.No.9 of 2000, claiming the third respondent as their tenant and eviction was granted in the petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960 on 012. 2001 and according to the third respondent, it is for the first time the petitioners claiming that the third respondent as tenant, started interfering with her business and it was against the order of eviction, she has filed RCA.Nos.6 and 7 of 2001. 5(b). According to the third respondent, there is a dispute regarding ownership of the property and the litigations are pending and the third respondent has been making payment of rent to Ronald Santhakumar at that point of time, viz., in the years 2001 and 2002. The third respondent submitted before the first respondent that she has not violated Rule 64 of the Rules and the mandatory provisions laid down have been followed by her. According to the third respondent, by renewal of licence, the third respondent is permitted to run the medical shop from 01.01.2002 to 312. 2006. 5(c). According to the third respondent, the petitioners have taken contrary stand while at one place the petitioners admitted the third respondent as their tenant and filed a petition for eviction and in another place, they have stated that the third respondent is only an unauthorised occupant. It is also stated that the very idea of the petitioners is to disturb the possession of the third respondent by short cut methods and canvass the same in the suit filed by Ronald Santhakumar against the petitioners challenging their ownership to the property. It is also stated by the third respondent that the right of the petitioners itself is a dispute pending in the Civil Court. 6. One Ronald Santhakumar has filed an affidavit along with a petition to implead him as a party. However, the fact remains that he has not been impleaded as a party, since he has not further pursued the said petition. According to him, there is a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2003, pending on the file of Sub-Court, Chengalpattu regarding the property, which is a subject matter of dispute.
However, the fact remains that he has not been impleaded as a party, since he has not further pursued the said petition. According to him, there is a suit in O.S.No.166 of 2003, pending on the file of Sub-Court, Chengalpattu regarding the property, which is a subject matter of dispute. He has also stated that he has availed some financial dealing with the husband of the 4th petitioner D.Saroja, who has obtained promissory notes, bonds, blank signed stamp papers as security besides 5 sale deeds pertaining to his property and only later they came to know that the husband of the 4th petitioner has clandestinely registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and thereafter for cancellation of the said deed was filed and the same is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.166 of 2003, which is pending. In respect of the same, the writ petitioners have also filed W.P.Nos.682, 684, 685 and 686 of 2005 and obtained interim orders. He has also stated that the third respondent has been in lawful tenancy and subsequently he sold away the property to the third respondent on 20.05.2004 under a registered document No.3445/2004 and now the third respondent is the lawful owner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and I have gone through various documents filed by the third respondent. 8. A reference to the impugned order filed by the first respondent dated 02.09.2002, shows that the same has been passed by the first respondent as per the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.23053 of 2002 dated 16.07.2002. It is also revealed as it is seen in the impugned order that the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for third respondent have appeared in the enquiry conducted by the first respondent on 27.08.2002. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the third respondent in the enquiry has stated that against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, there is an appeal in which an order of stay was passed.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for the third respondent in the enquiry has stated that against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, there is an appeal in which an order of stay was passed. It is also seen that execution petition has been filed in E.P.No.7 of 2002 on behalf of the petitioners and it was, considering the litigation pending in the Court, which has to be settled, ultimately, the first respondent has passed orders on the basis that the renewal of licence is automatic as per Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, if the premises is adequate and equipped with proper storage accommodation for preserving the properties of drugs to which the licence is supplied and the properties of drugs are in charge of a person competent in the opinion of the licensing authority to supervise and control the sale, distribution and preservation of drugs. The impugned order further states that as per the said Rule, the Licensing Authority was satisfied that the third respondent has not committed an offence under the Act or the Rules and the third respondent is not a person unfit for such licence due the reason that there is a principal licence granted or renewed and therefore, the first respondent being fully satisfied about the requirements to Rule 64 of the Rules, renewed the licence of the third respondent from 01.01.2002 to 312. 2006 and consequently the renewal order has been passed. 10. The judgement in Civil Appeal No.1027 of 2005 dated 210. 2005 rendered in C. Albert Morris vs. K.Chandrasekaran and Others on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the dealership under the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. While construing Rule 144(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 for the installation of retail outlet of Petrol and HSD, the Government of Pondicherry has granted No Objection Certificate, but the granting of licence was objected to on the ground that a suit was filed for eviction and possession. The tenant raised the defence that what was leased was only the land and he has constructed the superstructure and therefore as a statutory tenant the notice is wholly illegal. The landlord approached the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai to cancel the permission granted to the tenant for storage of petroleum.
The tenant raised the defence that what was leased was only the land and he has constructed the superstructure and therefore as a statutory tenant the notice is wholly illegal. The landlord approached the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai to cancel the permission granted to the tenant for storage of petroleum. The tenant has defended it before the authority stating that the No Objection Certificate granted is still valid and the tenant was a tenant holding over and not a trespasser and also he is a statutory tenant. The learned single Judge of this Court by relying upon the decision based on the Cinematography Act, has concluded that the word "right" only means a "legal right to continue in occupation or possession without interruption" and therefore, allowed the writ petition filed by the landlord. The Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench even though found that the tenant was not a lawful tenant and his possession was not legal, but held that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules contemplates an enquiry into the right of the lessee to hold the property and the same is not a bar and on that basis the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. 11. While dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant, the Supreme Court has dealt with the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 1976 and construed that the term right includes lawful right of a tenant and the authority granting licence or renewing licence has to instantly consider and decide about the right of licensee to continue to be in possession. The Supreme Court while dismissing the petition has also held that consensus of judicial opinion in this country is that a mere continuance in occupation of the demised premises after the expiry of the lease, notwithstanding the receipt of an amount by the quondam landlord would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of tenant or a right to be in possession.
The Supreme Court has referred to various judgments, including Raptakos Breet & Co.Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property ( 1998 (7) SCC 184 ), wherein it was held as follows: "In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it must be held that on the expiry of the period of lease, the erstwhile lessee continues in possession because of the law of the land, namely that the original landlord cannot physically threw out such an erstwhile tenant by force. He must get his claim for possession adjudicated by a competent Court as per the relevant provisions of law. The status of an erstwhile tenant has to be treated as a tenant at sufferance akin to a trespasser having no independent right to continue in possession." 12. The Supreme Court has also considered the earlier judgment in Saleh Bros. vs. K.Rajendran & Another (AIR 1970 Madras 165) and Bhawanji Lakhamshi & Others vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Others ( 1972 (2) SCR 890 ), wherein it was held that the act of holding over after expiry of term of tenancy does not create any kind of tenancy. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law/rule is that he is a tenant of sufferance. The Supreme Court has also relied upon the judgment in R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (1985 (5) SCC 698), which also ratifies the tenancy of sufferance. 13. It is true that all those cases referred to by the Supreme Court in the above said judgement are concerned with the lawful tenant, whose tenancy has been terminated after determination either by the landlord receiving the rent under protest from the tenant, or having admitted the prior tenancy under the land lord and in those circumstances the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal has held as follows: "In our opinion, any right which the dealer has over his site was the right which he had acquired in terms of the lease. When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site.
When that lease expired and when the landlord declined to renew the same and also called upon the erstwhile tenant to surrender possession, the erstwhile lessee could no longer assert that he had any right to the site. His continued occupation of something which he had no right to occupy cannot be regarded as source of a right to the land of which he himself was not in lawful possession. As observed by this Court in the case of M.C.Chockalingam & Others vs. V.Manickavasagam & Others ( 1974 (1) SCC 48 ), litigious possession cannot be regarded as lawful possession. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court the right referred to in this Rule has necessarily to be regarded as right which is in accordance with law and the right to the site must be one which is capable of being regarded as lawful. We have already referred to Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Others vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani & Others ( 1972 (2) SCR 890 ) wherein this Court held that the act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. A new tenancy is created only when the landlord assents to the continuance of the erstwhile tenant or the landlord agrees to accept rent for the continued possession of the land by the erstwhile tenant. The contention of Mr.L.N.Rao that the landlords assent should be inferred from the conduct of the landlord who had filed the suit for ejectment, but did not pursue the same, has no force. This suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, liberty which the Court has granted. The possession of this site by the erstwhile lessee does not ripen into a lawful possession merely because the landlord did not proceed with the suit for ejectment at that time, but reserved the right to bring such a suit at a later point of time. That cannot amount to an assent on his part to the continued occupation of the landlord under cover of a right asserted by the erstwhile lessee.
That cannot amount to an assent on his part to the continued occupation of the landlord under cover of a right asserted by the erstwhile lessee. The word "right to the site" in Rule 153(1)(i) must, therefore, in our opinion, be given their full meaning and the effect that unless the person seeking a licence is in a position to establish a right to the site, he would not be entitled to hold or have his licence renewed. We have already rejected the contention of Mr.L.N.Rao that the appellant-tenant is a statutory tenant for the reasons recorded earlier. The lease deed is very clear as to what was leased. The lease was of vacant land. That is evident from the recitals in the plaint, legal notice, lease deed etc. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the lease of land is not covered by the statute, The Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1969 in force extending protection to tenants." 14. Under the Petroleum Rules,1976, for suspension and cancellation of licence there is a specific clause stating that in cases where the licensee ceases to have any right over the site for storing petroleum; the licence granted shall stand cancelled apart from other grounds, viz., "153. Suspension and cancellation of licence.-(1) Every licence granted under these rules shall- (i)stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum; (ii)stand cancelled, if the no-objection certificate is cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 151; (iii)be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the act or of any rule there under or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so: Provided that- (a) before suspending or cancelling a licence under the rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard; (b) the maximum period of suspension shall not exceed three months; and (c) the suspension of a licence shall not debar the holder of the licence from applying for its renewal in accordance with the provisions of rule 149.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of a licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases- (a) where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the act or these rules, or of any conditions in such licence and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public: Provided that where a licence is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or (b) where the license is suspended or cancelled by the Central Government, if that Government considers that in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the State such opportunity, should not be given. (3) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a licence under sub-rule (1), shall record its reasons for so doing in writing." However, while cancelling such licence, the licensee shall be given an opportunity. 15. Rule 64 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 deals with the conditions to be satisfied before a licence is granted or renewed, makes it clear that a licence or renewal shall not be granted, (i) unless the authority empowered to grant the licence is satisfied that the premises in respect of which the licence is granted or renewed is adequate; (ii) equipped with proper storage accommodation for preserving the properties of the drugs; and (iii) that the premises is in charge of a person competent in the opinion of licensing authority to supervise and control the sale, distribution and preservation of drugs. 16. Rule 64(2) also enables the Licensing authority while granting or renewing the same to take into account the average number of licences granted or renewed during the period of three years and the occupation of trade or business ordinarily carried on by such applicant during the said period. In the proviso an obligation is imposed upon the Licensing Authority to find out as to whether the area to which the licence is to be granted is not less than 10 sq.mts. and he must be a registered pharmacist or passed matriculation examination etc. The said rule is as follows: "64.
In the proviso an obligation is imposed upon the Licensing Authority to find out as to whether the area to which the licence is to be granted is not less than 10 sq.mts. and he must be a registered pharmacist or passed matriculation examination etc. The said rule is as follows: "64. Conditions to be satisfied before a licence in [Form 20, 20B, 20F, 20G, 21 or 21B] is granted [or renewed].- (1)....... (2) In granting [or renewing] a licence under sub-rule (1) the authority empowered to grant it shall have regard - (i)to the average number of licences granted [ or renewed] during the period of 3 years immediately preceding, and (ii)to the occupation, trade or business ordinarily carried on by such applicant during the period aforesaid: Provided that the licensing authority may refuse to grant or renew a licence to any application or licensee in respect of whom it is satisfied that by reason of his conviction of an offence under the Act or these rules, or the previous cancellation or suspension of any licence granted [or renewed] under this rule. Every such order shall be communicated to the licensee as soon as possible: [Provided further that in respect of an application for the grant of licence in Form 20-B or Form 21-B or both, the licensing authority shall satisfy himself that the premises in respect of which a wholesale licence is to be granted [ or renewed] are- (i)of an area of not less than ten square meters; and (ii)in the charge of a competent person, who is a Registered Pharmacist and who has passed the Matriculation Examination or its equivalent with four years experience in dealing with drug.]" 17. Rule 65A contemplates additional information to be furnished by the applicant for licence. The said Rule specifically excludes the renewal and on the face of it, it is made applicable for issuance of fresh licence by the Licensing Authority. It contains the provision that the licensee should produce documentary evidence in respect of ownership or occupation of the premises on rental or on other basis, apart from other documents relating to the constitution of the firm, etc. The said Rule is as follows: "65A.
It contains the provision that the licensee should produce documentary evidence in respect of ownership or occupation of the premises on rental or on other basis, apart from other documents relating to the constitution of the firm, etc. The said Rule is as follows: "65A. Additional information to be furnished by an applicant for licence or a licensee to the licensing authority.- The applicant for the grant of a licence or any person granted a licence under this Part shall, on demand, furnish to the licensing authority, before the grant of the licence or during the period of licence is in force, as the case may be, documentary evidence in respect of the ownership or occupation on rent or other basis of the premises, specified in the application for licence or in the licence granted, constitution of the firm, or any other relevant matter which may be required for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the statements made by the applicant or the licensee while applying for or after obtaining the licence, as the case may be." 18. Therefore, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which is applicable for the purpose of grant or renewal of licence, there is no provision similar to the provision of Petroleum Rules, especially Rule 153, which makes it obligatory on the part of the Licensing Authority to cancel the licence if the licensee ceases to have any "right to the site" for storing petroleum. The judgement of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners which relates to the term "right" under the Petroleum Rules, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 19.
The judgement of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners which relates to the term "right" under the Petroleum Rules, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 19. As enumerated above, the said Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, especially Rule 64(1) which relates to the grant as well as renewal of licence imposes certain conditions which are relating to the adequacy of premises for storage and relating to the person in charge of the shop that he is competent in the opinion of the Licensing Authority to supervise and control the sale and therefore, the said Rule is focused more on the person, who is controlling the pharmacy and it is basically intended for the protection of public from unauthorized persons without qualification selling the drugs and cosmetics, whereas in the other Rule relating to Petroleum, it is more relating to safety of the storing place and therefore it requires a "right" of a person over the property. 20. Further, Rule 65A only deals with the additional information for the purpose of verifying the correctness of statements made by the applicant at the time of applying for licence and in my considered view, the same is relating to the grant of licence originally. Even Rule 66 which deals with cancellation and suspension does not speak about the "right" of person in respect of the property, but in respect of conduct of person. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the facts and circumstances of the case before the Honble Supreme Court, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. As per the Rules, it is only the suggestion of the Licensing Authority and inasmuch as the Licensing Authority is satisfied with the conditions enumerated under Rule 64 of the Rules, while renewing licence to the third respondent, it is not for this Court to interfere to hold otherwise. Moreover, in the present case, not only the Rent Control Petition was filed for eviction, but subsequent suits are also pending between the vendors and the petitioners and the validity of sale itself is in question.
Moreover, in the present case, not only the Rent Control Petition was filed for eviction, but subsequent suits are also pending between the vendors and the petitioners and the validity of sale itself is in question. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that it is of litigious property. In the point of view of the third respondent, she does not claim tenancy under the petitioners and she claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed executed in her favour by the vendor of the petitioners in 2004, about which litigation is pending. In such circumstances, the third respondent, after the order of eviction was passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 cannot be said to be a trespasser, especially when it is not in dispute that the third respondent has filed an appeal against such order of eviction and there is an order of stay granted by the competent appellate authority as per the Rent Control Act. In view of the same, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.