ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing proceedings in Cr.No.3008/2022/CPE/TS/F1, dt.29.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/C/64, Plot No.64, situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad within a period of 15 days, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of article 14, 15 and 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.…” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises bearing No.8-2- 293/82/C/64, Ground Floor, situated at Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, belongs to the Respondent No.5. The Respondent Nos.5 and 6 acquainted with each other and in the year 2018, the Respondent No.5 offered to lease the said property in favour of Respondent No.6 on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, respondent No.6 paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs towards advance to the Respondent No.5 on 03.09.2019 and spent huge amount for renovation and development of the said premises. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 was granted licence to run liquor retail A4 shop for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and started doing liquor business in the said premises under the name and style "Hi-Spirits". It is further case of the petitioner that on 09.11.2021, respondent No.2 issued Gazette notification for drawal of lots for Grant of license to liquor retail A4 shops under Rule 5 of Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 (for short “Excise Rules, 2012”) for the period from 01.12.2021 to 30.11.2023. The petitioner succeeded in the said notification and he was granted license vide No.HYD027/2021-23, dt.17.01.2022 to run liquor retail A4 shop. It is further case of the petitioner that as there was already existing liquor retail A4 shop in subject premises, the petitioner obtained the same from respondent No.6 and started running liquor retail A4 shop under the name and style “M/s.Hyderabad Wine Mart”. It is further case of the petitioner that as there was already existing liquor retail A4 shop in subject premises, the petitioner obtained the same from respondent No.6 and started running liquor retail A4 shop under the name and style “M/s.Hyderabad Wine Mart”. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.6 is also a partner in the liquor retail A4 shop being run by him. However, due to internal disputes between the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Respondent No.5 made a representation dt.05.02.2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 requesting to take appropriate action for unauthorized running of wine shop at the subject premises. It is further case of the petitioner that without following due process of law, respondent No.5 is trying to evict the petitioner through respondent No.2. It is further case of the petitioner that as the Respondent No.5 was creating hurdles and threatening to dispossess the petitioner by force, the Respondent No.6 filed a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Respondent No.5 seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022. The respondent No.5, questioning the action of the excise authorities in not disposing of his representation, filed a Writ Petition No.43716 of 2022 on the file of this Court. In the said Writ Petition, this Court granted interim order directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation submitted by the respondent No.5 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the said interim direction, the respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated 29.05.2023 directing the petitioner herein to shift/relocate the liquor A4 shop i.e, M/s. Hyderabad Wine Mart in G.SI.No.HYD02 within 15 days from the existing premises in public interest, in terms of Rule 28 of the Excise Rules, 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondent No.6, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondent No.6, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 inter alia stating that respondent No.5 has filed Writ Petition No.43716 of 2022 on the file of this Court, wherein this Court vide interim order dated 19.12.2022 directed the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dated 05.02.2022 filed by the respondent No.5 herein within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also directed the respondent No.2 to follow principles of natural justice and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein/respondent No.5 therein before final orders are passed. In compliance of the same, the respondent No.2 gave opportunity to all the parties and personally heard the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein. The respondent No.5 has contended before the respondent No.2 that earlier he leased the premises to respondent No.6 and now without his consent, the respondent No.6 has leased the premises to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner also appeared before the respondent No.2 personally on 17.03.2023 and stated that his partner i.e., respondent No.6 is having all the relevant information and as such the respondent No.2 directed them to appear on 21.03.2023. The respondent No.6 appeared and stated that the subject premises was taken on oral lease for a period of ten years and when the disputes arose between the respondent No.5 and petitioner, a civil suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 was filed by the respondent No.6 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022 dated 21.04.2022. It is stated in the counter that the respondent No.2 after personal hearing all the parties and having considered the entire material on record including the representations of the parties, came to conclusion that the petitioner herein has not submitted any valid document at that time of obtaining licence and the petitioner obtained the licence by misleading the facts to the department and considering all the above aspects, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 directing the petitioner to shift/re-locate the A4 shop from the existing premises within a period of 15 days, in terms of Rule 28 of Excise Rules, 2012. It is further stated that since the respondent No.2 is conferred with the powers under Excise Rules, 2012 to pass an order, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The respondent No.6 has filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner and stated that he is one of the partner in M/s. Hyderabad Wine Mart, Hyderabad being run by the petitioner. The respondent No.6 stated that initially he obtained the subject premises on lease from the respondent No.5 for a period of 10 years for running the liquor retail A4 shop and when the disputes arose between him and the respondent No.5, he instituted a civil suit vide O.S.No.197/2022 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the said Court also granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022. Since the respondent No.5 has agreed to let out the premises for a period of 10 years, with the oral consent of respondent No.5, he spent huge amount for renovation and development and started running liquor retail A4 shop. It is further stated by the respondent No.6 that it is not mandatory to produce the consent of owner of the premises for running liquor retail A4 shop. Since there is no dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 with regard to leasing out the premises, the owner of the premises has no right to put conditions for using the premises let out. 5. Since there is no dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 with regard to leasing out the premises, the owner of the premises has no right to put conditions for using the premises let out. 5. It is apt and appropriate to extract the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, which reads as follows: Background Whereas, Sri Kolan Nitish Reddy, S/o. Sanjeev Reddy is the successful applicant in drawal of lots for grant of A4-shop for G.SI.No. HYD027 and obtained A4-shop license bearing No. HYD027/2021-23, dt: 17.01.2022 by fulfilling prescribed formalities and established A4-shop in the name and style of M/s Hyderabad Wine Mart at premises bearing No 8-2-293/82/C/64, Ground floor, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad for the license period 2021-23 and valid upto 31.11.2023. And whereas, Sri M. Chandra Shaker Reddy, S/o. M Venkat Reddy, through his representation stated that Sri M. Harish Reddy, S/o. Chandra Shaker Reddy is the absolute owner of the property and Sri Chandra Shaker Reddy is the GPA holder They have given their property on lease to run A4-shop business to Sri M. Suresh Reddy and A.Lakshminarsimha Reddy for the lease period 2019-21 only. Now their premises was leased out without their consent to Kolan Nithish Reddy, licensee of M/s Hyderabad Wine Mart for the lease period 2021-23 by Sri M. Suresh Reddy and is requesting to cancel the license. Principles of Natural Justice: Personal hearing Whereas, in pursuance to the Hon'ble High Court, Telangana orders in IA No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 43716 of 2022, dt. 19.12.2022 opportunity was given to all parties to ascertain the facts. And whereas, Sri M. Chandra Shaker Reddy appeared on 17.03.2023 and stated that, they have given their property on lease to run A4-shop business to Sri M. Suresh Reddy and A. Lakshminarsimha Reddy for the lease period 2019-21 only. Now their premises was leased out without their consent to Sri Kolan Nitish Reddy, licensee of M/s Hyderabad Wine Mart for the lease period 2021-23 by Sri M. Suresh Reddy. He is not getting rent since 2022 and also submitted a letter obtained from Sr. Manager IOB that SB A/c No.258301000001009 is in the name of M. Harish Reddy and Sindu Bigala is active from 2014 and requested to cancel the licence. He is not getting rent since 2022 and also submitted a letter obtained from Sr. Manager IOB that SB A/c No.258301000001009 is in the name of M. Harish Reddy and Sindu Bigala is active from 2014 and requested to cancel the licence. And whereas, Sri Kolan Nitish Reddy, licensee of M/s Hyderabad Wine Mart, (G.SI.No. HYD02) appeared on 17.03.2023 and stated that, his partner Suresh Reddy is aware of details of the lease etc, who has all relevant information. Hence, instructed A4-shop licensee along with his partner to appear on 21.03.2023 at 11:30 am. And whereas, on 21.03.2023 Sri Suresh Reddy appeared and stated that the said owners have leased out the said property to him @ Rs. 40,000/- per month and later took Rs. 40.00 lakhs (Rupees Forty lakhs only) as deposit vide RTGS No. ICICR52019090300695833, dt. 03.09.2019 with oral lease agreement for 10 years and he further carried out major repairs which costed around 1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only). Further, owners have taken loan on the said property and asked him to pay EMI @ Rs. 4,02,000/- per month. Having come to know that the owners are going to sell the said property he filed OS No. 1597 before the Hon'ble V Junior Civil Judge of City Civil Court and the Hon'ble Court granted Status Quo injunction orders in I.A. No. 543/2022 of O.S. No. 1597/2022, dt. 21.04.2022. There is a Civil dispute between him and owners and that's why owners misleading the facts to the Department. And whereas, another person Sri P. Pramod Kumar appeared on 21.03.2023 and he claimed to be a part owner(s) in the said premises. Consequently, instructed all parties to submit documents in support of such claim within 5 days. In case documents are not submitted within (5) days decision will be as per the facts available on file. And whereas, the A4 shop licensee has not submitted/ produced any valid document i.e title deed/ sub-lease document/ partnership deed. Assessment & findings: And whereas, there are claims and counter claims over the shop premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/C/64, on Plot No.64, Sy. No. 403/8 to 111 situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad and there are civil disputes among parties affecting the day-to-day sales of the said A4-shop. Civil Court is the proper forum to decide such disputes. Assessment & findings: And whereas, there are claims and counter claims over the shop premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/C/64, on Plot No.64, Sy. No. 403/8 to 111 situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad and there are civil disputes among parties affecting the day-to-day sales of the said A4-shop. Civil Court is the proper forum to decide such disputes. In this case, licensee Sri Kolan Nitish Reddy, S/o. K. Sanjeev Reddy not submitted any valid document i.e., title deed/ sub-lease document/ partnership deed at the time of obtaining license. It appears that, he has obtained the A4-shop license by misleading the facts to the Department! In the circumstances I felt it is appropriate that order of shifting of A4 shop is suffice in this matter. Therefore, the representation of Sri M. Chandra Shaker Reddy, S/o. M. Venkat Reddy dated 05.02.2022 is partly considered to the extent of shifting the said A4-shop from the said premises. In view of the above facts and circumstance, District Prohibition & Excise Officer Hyderabad is directed to shift/ relocate of the above said A4-shop i.e., M/s Hyderabad Wine Mart in G.SI. No. HYD02 within 15 days from the existing premises in public interest, in terms of Rule 28 of T.S. Excise (Grant of license of selling by shop and conditions of license) Rules, 2012 immediately. The representation dated 05.02.2022 of Sri M. Chandra Shaker Reddy, S/o. M. Venkat Reddy, GPA of M.Harish Reddy is disposed off accordingly These orders are issued in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Telangana in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.43716 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022. 6. The relevant Rules i.e, Rules 15, 25 and 28 of the Telangana Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2012 (for short “Excise Rules, 2012”), are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “15. Selected applicant shall obtain licence:- The selected applicant shall obtain licence in Form A-4 after fulfilling the required formalities and satisfying the rules in respect of the premises where the shop will be located. 25. Selection of Premises:- (1) Subject to the approval of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent the selected applicant shall select suitable premises for sale of IMFL and FL within the Municipal Corporation, Municipality, village/town/city or area/ locality as the case may be as notified in the District Gazette. 25. Selection of Premises:- (1) Subject to the approval of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent the selected applicant shall select suitable premises for sale of IMFL and FL within the Municipal Corporation, Municipality, village/town/city or area/ locality as the case may be as notified in the District Gazette. It shall be at least 100 meters away from the places of Public worship, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and 50 Meters away from Highways. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule. (a) “Place of public worship” means a temple registered with the Endowment Department, Mosque registered with Wakf Board and Church and includes such other religious institutions, as the State Government may by order specify in this behalf; (b) “Educational Institutions” means any Primary school, Middle School and High School recognized by the State Government or Central Government, Junior College or any College affiliated to any University established by law: (c) “High Way” means National High way or State Highway and shall not include the part of the National Highway or State Highway which passes within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Municipality or the Gouthan in any village or Panchayat area. (d) “Hospital” means any hospital which is managed or owned by a local authority, State Government or Central Government or any private hospital having a provision of at least thirty (30) beds. (2) The holder of Licence in Form A-4 in places, whose population is 5000 and above, shall be licensed in Form A-4(B) to have a Permit Room. Provided that no such Permit Room will be granted in Municipal Corporation and Municipalities and within a belt area of 5 kms from the periphery of such Municipal Corporation and within a belt area of 2 kms from the periphery of such Municipalities and in Tourism centres. The premises selected for permit room must be adjacent to the existing A-4 Licensed premises and it must have a minimum plinth area of 15 sq.mts for consumption of liquor with additional facilities of sanitation such as wash basin, water closet and drinking water. Provided also that the selected premises shall be at least 100mtrs away from the places of public worship, educational institutions, hospitals and at least 50mtrs from high ways. Provided also that the selected premises shall be at least 100mtrs away from the places of public worship, educational institutions, hospitals and at least 50mtrs from high ways. (3) The distances referred above shall be measured from the mid-point of the entrance of the Licensed premises along the nearest path by which a pedestrian would ordinarily reach the mid-point of the nearest gate of the institution or a place of public worship, if there is a compound wall and if there is no compound wall to the mid-point of the nearest entrance of the Institution/ place of public worship. (4) The boundaries of the premises shall be indicated in the licence. (5) There shall be a single door for entry and exit for the licensed shop and sales shall be conducted without giving entry to the customers inside the premises. 28. Sale permitted at the licensed premises only: (1) The licensee shall sell liquor only at the premises specified in the licence. (2) No change or alteration of the licensed premises shall be made nor the licensed premises shifted elsewhere. (3) Shifting of the licensed premises may be permitted for valid reasons within the notified area and subject to conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner of Prohibition. & Excise, subject to payment of 1% of the licence fee or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher Provided that the Commissioner may consider and permit for valid reasons shifting of the licensed premises, notwithstanding the notified area of the licensed premises, within the same Mandal or Municipality or Municipal Corporation without affecting the total number of Notified shops in the said Mandal or Municipality or Municipal Corporation subject to conditions as specified by the Commissioner and subject to payment of 1% of licence fee or Rs.25,000/- whichever is higher. 7. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed undertaking memo dated 14.08.2023, wherein he gave an undertaking that he would vacate the premises bearing No.8-2- 293/82/C/64, Plot No.64, situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad, in which he is running liquor retail A-4 shop on 30.11.2023 and thereafter, he cannot sell the liquor in the above said premises. The respondent No.5 has not agreed for the said proposal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. The respondent No.5 has not agreed for the said proposal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the Excise Rules, 2012, a person in whose favour, licence has been granted to run liquor retail A-4 shop at the selected premises, should either be owner of such premises or the lessee thereof and the copy of lease agreement executed by the landlord or the copy of sale deed showing that the premises belongs to him can be produced but the Excise Rules do not contemplate that licensee has to obtain consent from the owner of the premises to establish the liquor retail A-4 shop. Therefore, in the absence of specific Rule, the respondent No.2 has no power under Rule 28 of the Excise Rules, 2012 to direct the petitioner to shift/relocate the premises. It is further argued that the Excise Rules, 2012 does not preclude a tenant from being a recipient of a licence, as the only object of requiring a lease agreement was to ensure that the tenant was in possession of the premises, and a tenant, who enjoyed the status of irremovability would clearly satisfy the purpose of the rule, and would therefore be entitled to a licence. It is further argued that reference to the lease agreement in the Rules is only to any lease agreement, and it does not necessarily be a lease agreement consented by the owner of the premises. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 by allowing the Writ Petition, as prayed for. 10. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has submitted that in view of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.5, the respondent No.6 was constrained to institute a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.197 of 2022 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction and the said Court also granted status quo order in I.A.No.543/2022 dated 21.04.2022. As long as status quo orders are in force, the respondent No.2 is not entitled to pass any orders directing relocation of the subject shop. As long as status quo orders are in force, the respondent No.2 is not entitled to pass any orders directing relocation of the subject shop. It is further submitted that tenant is entitled to remain in possession until he is lawfully evicted by following due process of law. 11. Per contra, Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has strenuously contended that a person, who bids at the auction for the sale of retail liquor has no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor, and that his right to carry on business in liquor is limited to the extent of privilege granted by the State and also subject to the conditions imposed. Rule 25 of the Excise Rules, 2012 requires production of a lease agreement as a pre-condition for grant of licence to persons who are not owners of the premises for carrying on business of retail liquor. Therefore, the authorities are empowered to impose the conditions within their power and that does not contravene Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned counsel that requirement to produce lease agreement by the licensee from the landlord, cannot be regarded as an irrational requirement or a requirement which is arbitrary or mala fide. It is further contended that any person, who wishes to carry on business of sale of retail liquor, must either own the building in which he intends to carry on such business or must have a lease agreement from the owner permitting him to carry on such business in that premises. In view of the powers being conferred on the respondent No.2, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 does not amount to discriminatory or arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that even if the orders passed by the respondent No.2 suffers from any illegality, it cannot be set at right by issuing Writ of Mandamus as it amounts to allowing perpetual illegality and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. It is further argued that even if the orders passed by the respondent No.2 suffers from any illegality, it cannot be set at right by issuing Writ of Mandamus as it amounts to allowing perpetual illegality and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has submitted that in compliance of the interim order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.43716 of 2022, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 13. On careful examination of the rival submissions of the respective counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the uniform policy adopted by the State of requiring every licensee to either own the building, in which he will carry on business of vend of retail liquor, or have a subsisting lease agreement from the landlord, is a condition which is open to the State to impose. The policy of the State in that regard is not open to judicial review, as the policy is one, which is within the province of the State to make and it is not on the face of it arbitrary or irrational or mala fide. The consent of the owner for running the specific business in his premises is only an incident of the requirement that the tenant be a contractual tenant. A person cannot be a contractual tenant without the consent of the landlord. The consent of the landlord has to be there, either expressly or impliedly for the business which the tenant proposes to carry on in the premises. In cases where the landlord has refused permission, or has opposed the grant of any licence to the tenant for running a liquor shop there, or the landlord is unwilling to consent to the use of his premises for such purpose, then notwithstanding the existence of a lease agreement, which merely permits the user of the premises for a purpose other than the running of a liquor shop such tenant cannot claim right to receive a licence under the Excise Rules, 2012. Rule 15 of the Excise Rules provides that the selected applicant shall obtain licence in Form A-4 after fulfilling the required formalities and satisfying the rules in respect of the premises where the shop will be located. Form A-4 contains the details of the premises where the shop has to be established along with the boundaries. The document either sale deed or lease deed is required to be enclosed to verify the details provided in the application regarding the locality and boundaries about the premises. It is a condition precedent that the lease deed or sale deed of the premises should be furnished for grant of licence. Rule 25 of the Excise Rules, 2012 states that the applicant shall select suitable premises which must be authorized premises. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 has leased the subject premises to the respondent No.6, who in turn, leased the same to the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 in respect of the subject premises. 14. A careful examination of the contentions raised by Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would disclose that only to overcome the lease conditions or utilize the premises of the respondent No.5 for the purpose of running liquor business, the respondent No.6 was inducted as a partner in liquor retail A-4 shop being run by the petitioner, as the petitioner was granted licence. This itself would establish the intention on the part of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 that they are collectively and collusively making efforts to retain the premises of the respondent No.5 for wrongful use. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court with a mala fide intention for wrongful gain is not having any right to seek equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a situation like the case on hand. Further, as per Rule 28 of the Excise Rules, 2012, powers are vested with the respondent No.2 to allow for shifting of the licensed premises for valid reasons. The respondent No.2 in the impugned order categorically stated that the petitioner has not submitted any valid document at the time of obtaining the licence. Further, it is also stated that the petitioner has obtained the licence by misleading the facts to the department. The respondent No.2 in the impugned order categorically stated that the petitioner has not submitted any valid document at the time of obtaining the licence. Further, it is also stated that the petitioner has obtained the licence by misleading the facts to the department. Therefore, these grounds are considered to be valid grounds for exercising powers vested with the respondent No.2 under Rule 28 of the Excise Rules, 2012. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 does not suffer from arbitrariness or any legal infirmities. 15. As this Court has come to a conclusion that the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for carrying on liquor business and in the absence of such consent, the authority is not entitled to grant licence to the tenant, the petitioner being the licensee of liquor retail A-4 shop is not entitled to run the A-4 shop in the subject premises of the respondent No.5 as a tenant/lessee/licensee. The petitioner being the tenant has no right to carry on any business of his choice in the premises belonging to another. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.