Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent, in respect of Shop No.58, Azad Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. He had applied for a licence for running a billiards club in the said premises. The first respondent had issued a licence, dated 13.9.2001, bearing licence No.T1/165/B-2/2001-2002. The said licence had been renewed, periodically. 3. It had been further stated that the billiards club has been running, in the name of Club-9 billiards club, from the year, 2001, till date. While so, during the month of December, 2011, the second respondent had tried to evict the petitioner from the premises, with the help of local rowdy elements. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, seeking for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant therein, the second respondent in the present writ petition, from evicting the petitioner, from the premises in question, without following the due process of law. An order of interim injunction had also been granted in favour of the petitioner, by an order, dated 9.12.2011, made in I.A.No.2282 of 2011, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011. 4. It had been further stated that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence in respect of the billiards club, for the year 2011-2012. However, the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner, by the impugned proceedings, dated 30.1.2012, for the reasons specified therein. 5. The first respondent had stated in the impugned proceedings, dated 30.1.2012, that the petitioner had not produced the `No Objection Certificate' from the owner of the building in question, the copy of the lease agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent and the receipt of the property tax paid by the owner of the building. The first respondent had also stated that the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed for the reason that the said licence had not been renewed, by the petitioner, from 1.4.2007, onwards. 6. The first respondent had also stated that the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed for the reason that the said licence had not been renewed, by the petitioner, from 1.4.2007, onwards. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent had objected to the granting of the licence, in favour of the petitioner, for running the billiards club, for the year, 2011-2012, by way of a petition, dated 5.12.2011, filed before the Inspector of Police, B2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore. Further, the application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the licence, had been rejected, as he has not enclosed the `No Objection Certificate', from the owner of the building in question. The copy of the lease agreement for the building, as well as the receipt showing the payment of property tax, in respect of the said property, had not been produced by the petitioner. The rejection of the application, for the renewal of the licence, had also been made, since, the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from 1.4.2007 onwards. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the petitioner has been running the billiards club in question, illegally, without having a valid licence, from the year 2008 onwards. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, by the first respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from 1.4.2007. The said fact had been suppressed by the petitioner. 8. It had also been stated that the petitioner had obtained an order of injunction before the civil Court, by misrepresentation, as if he is a lessee in the premies in question, on the basis of an oral lease. It had also been stated that the petitioner is not a tenant holding over, as claimed by him. He is only a licencee, whose licence had expired long back. Since, the petitioner has been carrying on illegal activities in the premises in question, the second respondent had not given the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, to run the billards club in the premises in question. He is only a licencee, whose licence had expired long back. Since, the petitioner has been carrying on illegal activities in the premises in question, the second respondent had not given the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, to run the billards club in the premises in question. In such circumstances, the second respondent had been constrained to file a police complaint, as well as a private complaint, based on which a First Information Report had been registered, on the file of the Inspector of Police, B2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore, in Crime No.2315 of 2011. While so, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence, rightly, under Sections 36 , 37 and 76 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.1.2012, does not say that the application of the petitioner, for renewal of the licence, for running the billiards club, had been rejected, due to the violation of the licence conditions. He had further submitted that the occupation of the premises in question, by the petitioner, is not in dispute. 10. Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, requires the obtaining of licence from the Commissioner of Police concerned for using the place or a building, for public entertainment. However, no conditions had been prescribed, under the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, and the rules framed thereunder, including Section 36 of the said Act, for the grant of the licence. He had also submitted that the Commissioner of Police has the power to cancel or suspend any licence and to impose a penalty, for the breach of the conditions, under Section 76 of the said Act. However, the Commissioner of Police should exercise his powers by taking into consideration the object of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, and the Rules framed thereunder. 11. He had further submitted that the second respondent had refused to give the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, as the second respondent has been trying to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. 11. He had further submitted that the second respondent had refused to give the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, as the second respondent has been trying to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. Once an order of interim injunction had been granted, by the civil Court concerned, in I.A.No.2282 of 2011, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011, restraining the second respondent from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises in question, it would not be open to the first respondent to reject the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence. When the petitioner had made huge investments in establishing the billiards club, in the premises in question, the rejection of the application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the licence, by the first respondent, without adducing proper reasons to do so, is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Per contra the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions for the renewal of the licence, prescribed in the application form, for the renewal of the licence. When the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents for the renewal of the licence, and as the licence had not been renewed, from the year, 2007, the first respondent had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the licence. Further, the first respondent has the power to impose such conditions, as may be found to be necessary, for the renewal of the licence, as per Section 36 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.1.2012. It is seen that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents, as required by the first respondent, for the renewal of the licence, for running the billiards club, in the premises in question, by the petitioner. 14. It is seen that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents, as required by the first respondent, for the renewal of the licence, for running the billiards club, in the premises in question, by the petitioner. 14. It is also seen that, as per Section 36 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, the Commissioner of police can impose such conditions, as may be found to be necessary, for the granting of the renewal of a licence. Even though it has been stated, in the said provision, that such conditions, prescribed by the Commissioner of Police, would be subject to the control and the direction of the State Government, nothing has been placed before this Court, by the petitioner, to show that the State Government had imposed certain restrictions on the power of the Commissioner of Police. 15. Further, it is noted, from the records available, that the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from the year, 2007. It is also clear that the requirements specified in the renewal application had not been complied with, by the petitioner, while submitting his application, for the renewal of the licence. As such, it is clear that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.