- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16929 OF 2024 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: SMT. C M SUDHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE SRI R M RAGHU, R/AT DOOR NO.19 6TH CROSS, SHAKTHI NAGARA MYSURU. ALSO AVAILABLE AT PADMAPRIYA BAR AND RESTAURANT PROPERTY NO.570/571 NEAR YELWALA BUS STAND YELWALA MYSURU. …PETITIONER (BY MS. RACHANA GANESH K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANMOHAN P N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, BMTC TTMC BLDG A BLOCK SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560027. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE FAROOQUIA BUILDING NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD MEDAR BLOCK YADAVAGIRI Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 MYSURU, KARNATAKA 570021. 3. INSPECTOR OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT OFFICE AT NO.1716, 7TH BLOCK KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE 570023. 4. SRI VINAY IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE Y J KRISHNA IYANGAR R/AT DOOR NO.459 BRAHAMIN ROAD YELWALA MYSORE 571130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. A.BA.KAA.RI/MY.VA.NO-2/DU.AA/05.2023-24 DATED 20.06.2024 PASSED BY R-3 IN AT ANNX-H; DIRECT THE R-3 TO ISSUE THE CHALLAN TO THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE AND TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-2 TO RENEW THE SAID LICENSE (CL 7). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has CL-7 Excise License, and she is operating this license from a property in Yelwala Village, Mysuru. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure-H) issued by the third respondent. The fourth respondent is the owner of the subject property, and he has caused a legal Notice dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-D) to the petitioner for termination of tenancy with the petitioner beginning the suit in O.S. No.968 of 2024 for permanent injunction against dispossession from the subject property otherwise than in the manner known to law. 2. The third respondent, with the issuance of the Endorsement at Annexure-H, has called upon the petitioner to produce the acknowledgement of continuance of the lease or to relocate to another property for renewal of the license. This Court has granted interim order on 27.06.2024 observing that as a necessary consequence of this order, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 petitioner shall be entitled for renewal subject to payment of the prescribed fee. 3. Ms. Rachana Ganesh K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of this Court's aforesaid interim order, the license has been renewed even for the current calendar year. On merits, Ms. Rachana Ganesh K submits that the petitioner's right as a tenant does not cease with the fourth respondent issuing notice dated 14.03.2024 and the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the subject property until she is duly dispossessed in law, and therefore, the third respondent could not have refused renewal. The learned counsel also proposes to rely upon the authorities to contend that the Excise Authorities cannot act to the landlord's tune. Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard on behalf of the officers of the Excise - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 Department. The fourth respondent though served has remained absent. 4. This Court must opine that it is trite that a tenant's right to continue in possession of the subject property does not cease merely because the notice of termination is issued or the lease period has expired, and the tenant, who continues as a tenant holding over, is entitled to be in possession until evicted under due process. If the landlord does not consent, the tenant continues as a tenant holding over at sufferance. This Court must opine that this settled law must prevail even when the tenant is in occupation of a property for business in liquor and especially so when there is nothing in the relevant Statute or the Rules therein to indicate the contrary. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the third respondent's Endorsement dated 20.06.2024, but observing that this Court's interference cannot in any manner foreclose the proceedings that would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14445 WP No. 16929 of 2024 otherwise be justified under the Statute. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The third respondent's impugned Endorsement dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure-H) is quashed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46