Syed Riyazuddin vs A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

A.S. Bhate, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission finally.

The petitioner''s case is that on 16-10-1995 he was granted a licence in respect of Room No. 7 in the commercial complex, Khammam belonging to the respondents, for running his business. Under the said licence a monthly licence fee was to be paid to the respondents and certain other conditions were to be fulfilled. The contention of the petitioner now is that by annexure which was Annexed to the agreement entered into by the parties there was one general term which stated "contract is given for a period of four years in the initial period and may extended by two more years on an enhanced rent @ 10% on the previous year rent (successive years).

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that irrespective of the fact that a specific agreement of licence was entered into on 16-10-1995 and in view of the Annexure which was attached, it was to be presumed that the contract was for four years initially and petitioner was entitled to get it renewed for next two years subject to payment of additional 10% each year. It is his contention that this being the position, the respondent-Corporation has called for tenders in respect of the shops including Shop No. 7 by notification dated 31-7-1999. This action of the respondents is untenable as licence of petitioner is subsisting and will expire only after 6 years from the date on which he initially entered into the contract.

The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The agreement which has been entered into by the parties clearly shows, from Clause 1, that the period of licence was from 1-10-1995 to 30-9-1999 only. It is only general term that the contract was extendable by two more years on enhanced rent. It did not give any specific right under the agreement which has been entered into by the parties. The terms of agreement are specific. Merely, because general conditions have been annexed to the agreement entered into by the parties, does not give any right to the petitioner automatically to get the licence extended. It is the general term that enables the respondents to extend the licence for next two years and the petitioner does not get any right as such to obtain extension. 1 am therefore, unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to renewal of the licence. The very fact that petitioner is a licensee is sufficient to show that there is no right to get it extended. The agreement was not a lease where right can vest in the lessee. Licence has no such right to get licence extended.

It is however clear that petitioner is entitled to continue with the licence till the expiry of the period specified in the deed of licence. The licence has not been terminated as per the procedure prescribed in the deed. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and carry on business till end of September, 1999. He cannot be ousted from the premises till the end of September, 1999. The notification of public auction does not show as to from what date the successful bidders are to be in possession. In any event the petitioner cannot be ousted till the end of 30-9-1999. The successful bidders shall be entitled to possession of Shop No. 7 only from 1-10-1999.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.