Shri.U.Udaiyar v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/602/2025 Shri U. Udaiyar Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ... for the private respondent December 16, 2025 [AKB] Item No. 3 1.
The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities more particularly respondent No.2 herein to refrain from issuing bar license in the name of the private respondent for premise in question. 2.
The petitioner's case in short herein is that he is in possession of the tenanted premises by virtue of a "sub-let" agreement dated 26.08.2011. It is stated in the agreement that the room rented was only for the purpose of business of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the petitioner that due to an understanding between the said parties to the agreement, the wife of the private respondent no.5 Smt. Jayanti Mondal, being the respondent no.6 herein was permitted by the petitioner herein to carry on the business of bar-cum-restaurant in his rented premises.
3.
It is further stated by the petitioner that a civil suit filed by him is pending against the private respondent herein restraining him from dispossessing the petitioner from the tenanted premises without due process of law. It is thus
submitted that as the tenanted premises is in the possession of the petitioner herein and the petitioner at this stage does not wish to permit the wife of the respondent No.5, being the respondent No. 6 herein from carrying on the said business in his tenanted premises, he has prayed for an order restraining the authorities concerned from issuing a fresh license in favour of the respondent No.6.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and 6 submits that paragraph 2 of the said sub-let agreement clearly lays down that the tenancy agreement was valid for the period from 01.09.2011 to 30.08.2014. It is thus submitted that the period of tenancy has expired and the petitioner is liable to vacate the said premises as he is now a trespasser. 5.
It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner was initiated into the said premises on the basis of a tenancy agreement of "sub-let". The respondent No.5 and 6 do not deny the same. Though the petitioner states that respondent No.6 runs her business in his premises, there is no materials to show that the business is run on the said premises. In the copy of the license dated 29.12.2016, which has been issued by the Designated Officer (Food Safety), North and Middle Andaman, it appears that the said license has been granted to the respondent No. 6 to carry on her business in the premises owned and possessed by respondent No. 5 and 6 at Diglipur. 6.
It is admitted by both parties that the respondent No.5 and 6 have other premises/rooms etc at the said address of
which they are the owner and are in possession, other than the room which has been let out to the petitioner herein. 7.
Considering the said facts and the materials on record, and as the initially tenanted portion of the premises in question/dispute is sub judice before a competent Civil Court, the writ application is disposed of with the direction that in case respondent No.6 applies for a fresh license for bar-cumrestaurant, the same may be considered by the respondent authorities for permitting the respondent No.6 to carry out the business of a bar-cum-restaurant in any part of the premises owned and possessed by them other than the disputed tenanted premises of the petitioner herein.
8.
This order shall remain in force till the Civil Suit before the Trial Court is disposed of in accordance with law, expeditiously.
9.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of along with all connected application, if any.
10.
Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]