NC: 2025:KHC:13314 WP No. 7848 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7848 OF 2025 (EXCISE)

BETWEEN:

MR.AKSHAY BIDARI S/O MR. RAJSHEKAR BIDARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PARTNER, M/S INFINITUM HOSPITALITY, PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2008, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, 100 FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 004

ALSO R/A NO.3, 5TH C CROSS, 16TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560076.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANGAD KAMATH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC TTMC BUILDING, A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560027.
• 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 05 BUD 5, BANGALORE 560001.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

3. MR. SHIVARAM S/O RANGAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/A NO.113-2B. NEW NO.2, OUTER RING ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560004.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 28.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FURNISHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A, INSOFAR AS IT REQUIRES THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH AN EXTENDED LEASE AGREEMENT AS A PRECONDITION FOR PROCESSING THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF THE CL-9 LICENSE; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FORTHWITH APPROVE THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 15.01.2025 FOR TRANSFER OF THE CL-9 LICENSE BEARING NO. ES20230705206 STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 17-B OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE LICENCES (GENERAL CONDITIONS) RULES, 1967, FURNISHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B WITHOUT INSISTING UPON THE PRODUCTION OF AN EXTENDED LEASE AGREEMENT, WITHIN A TIME-BOUND PERIOD AS MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is a partner of a Firm, and as a partner of such a Firm he has the benefit of Lease Agreements for two floors in a property on 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru -560 004 [the Subject Premises]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Communication dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-A]. The second respondent, considering the petitioner's request for transfer of license from the current license holder in his favour, has informed the petitioner by this Communication that the lease period has expired on 31.01.2025, and therefore, he must get the necessary extension of lease from the owner/s of the Subject Premises.

• 2. The respondents are extended an opportunity to reply to the petitioner's fundamental case that lease period for the Subject Premises may have expired, but he, as a partner of the Firm [and for the benefit of the Firm], is entitled to continue in the Subject Premises as he is not dispossessed under law and that there are proceedings pending between him and the owners of the Subject Premises. In response, the respondents state:
  • [a] that the requirement for acknowledgment of extension of lease is because of the software that is deployed by them, and
  • [b] that the respondents have learnt that there is a suit pending in O.S.No.6211/2019.

Mr. Angad Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed on record a copy of the plaint

in O.S.No.6211/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Manjunath B., the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, are heard for final disposal in the light of this and the other records.

• 3. This Court must observe that the following emerge as undisputed.
• [a] Mr. P. Venkatesan has executed the Lease Agreement dated 01.02.2016 for the third floor and Ms. Roopa Mahindra and another have executed an even dated Lease Agreement for the second floor. There is an inter se dispute between Mr.P.Venkatesan and the aforesaid Ms. Roopa Mahindra as also the others. This dispute has resulted in a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.6211/2019.
• [b] The petitioner and Mr. P. Venkatesan are parties to an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in

Commercial Arbitration Application No.176/2009, which is disposed of restraining Mr.P.Venkatesan from disturbing the petitioner's use of the concerned floor without recourse to due process in law. These are also parties to the pending arbitral proceedings with Mr.P.Venkatesan raising a claim for certain dues and the petitioner claiming a set of.

• [c] There is no dispute amongst the license holder, the proposed transferee and the petitioner.
• 4. Significantly, it cannot be disputed by the respondents that the right in a tenant to occupy the leased premises and continue the business in such premises does not cease only because the lease period has expired, and that such tenant, as a tenant holding over in law, is entitled to continue in the property and business unless he/she is duly evicted would be. If this remains unassailable, the petitioner's request for transfer of license cannot be

deferred insisting upon the petitioner to produce an acknowledgment of continuance of the lease, which would not come about because of the dispute. It is also not just for the respondents to say that, because the software deployed by them requires such acknowledgment, the transfer application must be deferred. As observed earlier, the petitioner has a substantial right in law. Therefore, the following:-

ORDER

• [i] The petition is allowed and the second respondent's Endorsement dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer in the light of the observations as aforesaid and subject to due compliance otherwise.
• [ii] The second respondent is directed to communicate the decision to the petitioner

within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA ct:sr