1. The appellant herein filed the writ petition making the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore Range The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (South) Madras and the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, as party respondents, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in R. C. No. 246/ 27154/E5/80 and to quash the order dated 8-10-1980. The appellant is running a lodging house at the premises bearing door No. 27 North Made St, Mylapore, Madras 4. The said property originally belonged to Messrs. R. V. Surendra Rao and R. V. Subba Rao and it is with them the appellant became a tenant and with their consent he obtained licence No. 253-B for running a lodging house under the Madras City Police Act of 1888, After obtaining proper licence. the appellant was running a hotel under the name and style of Suprabath Lodging.' Necessary Corporation licence has also been obtained by the appellant. one -B. S. Kumar and B. S. Raiendran purchased ~the premises No. 27 North Mada St, Mylapore. in Nov. 1979. The appellant has attorned his tenancy to them and is also Paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1600 without any default as and from 1-121979.
The Assistant Commissioner of police by his order dated 18th June 1980 stated that the owners of the premises i. e. B. S. Kumar and B. S. Rajendran. have objected to the renewal of the lodging house licence for the year 1980-81, that the previous lease entered into by the appellant had expired on 31-3-1979 and that the appellant had no valid lease agreement either from the previous owner or from the present owners permitting him to run the lodging house as and from 31-3-1979. The appellant was earlier directed to show cause why the licence issued to him should not be cancelled. After getting a reply and also after referring to the report of the Assistant Health Officer to the effect that the sanitary conditions of the lodge were not satisfactory, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the renewal application by cancelling the licence No. 253/-P, issued to the appellant herein. In passing the said order, the Assistant Commissioner purported to exercise his Power under See. 36 of the Madras City Police Act. Thus it is clear that the licence granted in favour of the appellant was cancelled (which we presume is only refusal to renew the licence applied for by the appellant), on the ground that the owners of the building had refused to give their consent for renewal and that the report of the Assistant Health Officer is to the effect that the sanitary conditions of the lodge were not satisfacory, Against this order of refusal to renew the licence the appellant preferred an appeal to the second respondent herein. The second respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, South Madras, finding that the owners of the building are not agreeable for renewing the licence, observed that such a state of affairs when there is disharmony between the owners and the tenant as a lodge keeper is bound to give rise to law and order situations and affect the decency and public safety and ultimatelv held that as per suborder (8) of Standing Order 63, the appellant must produce a consent letter: from the owners and since no consent letter has been given, the licence cannot be renewed. With these observations, the appeal was dismissed. Against this order, the appellant preferred a revision to, the Commissioner of Police, whose order is impugned in the writ proceedings. The Commissioner of Police, after accepting the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of police to the effect that there is a likelihood of law and order problem arising due to ill-feelings between the landlords and the tenant and also observing that the Assistant Health Officer of the Corporation of Madras in his reference C. No. Al/205/80 dated 18-4-1980 had reported that the sanitary conditions of the Lodge were not satisfactory, dismissed the revision Petition. It is against this order of the Commissioner of Police. the writ petition has been flied. The learned single Judge of our High Court, at the admissions on stage itself, after observing that the writ court cannot sit in judgment over the reasons given by the police authorities to the effect that law and order Problem would be created and that there is also a report of the Assistant Health Officer of the Corporation of Madras regarding the sanitary conditions of the Lodge, dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order of dismissal of the writ petition, the present writ appeal has been filed,
2. Mr. Sridevan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, correctly Points out that Standing Order 63 (8) will not apply to the facts of this case The said Standing Order 63 (8) is as follows-
"When the Possession or ownership of the tea shop etc. is transferred, the transferee shall apply within fifteen days from the date of such transfer along with the Corporation licence duly transferred in his name and also a letter of consent of the seller and the owner of the premises where the tea shop etc. is run.
This is not a case wherein any transfer of the tea shop etc. is being made. This is a case in which the appellant wants renewal of the licence for running the 1049ing house which he was having previously. We are convinced that this Standing Order will not apply to the facts of this case,
3. Mr. Sridevan has also correctly pointed out as to how the report of the Assistant Health -officer referred to by the Deputy Commissioner of Police cannot stand for a moment's scrutiny, S. 103(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 which deals with the registration and renewal of registration clearly states that the executive authority shall not register an applicant until the Health Officer has inspected the Premises named in the application and has recommended such registration. As far as the Present case is concerned, there is a registration certificate issued under S. 101 of the T. N. P. H. Act 1939, dated 20-6-1980, by the Corporation of Madras. This is definitely subsequent to the report of the Assistant which is referred to in the order of the Deputy Commissioner who is the second respondent herein. As we have already stated. the registration certificate shall be issued under S. 103 of the T. N. P. H. Act, only after the Health Officer has inspected the Premises named in the application and has recommended the application. The very fact the certificate of registration was issued on 20-61980 establishes that subsequent to the inspection on 3-4-1980, there ought to have been another inspection by the Health department of the Corporation and on the strength of such 'inspection report, the certificate dated 20-6-1980, ought to have been issued. This fact has been overlooked in the orders passed by the second and third respondents herein.
4. As regards the consent from the Present owners of the premises, Mr. Sridevan submitted that after the lease Period was over with his previous landlords. the appellant becomes a statement and as a matter of fact the present landlords have also received rents from the appellant subsequent to the purchase of the premises by them. The contention of the appellant is that the apprehension of the second and third respondents as if a law and order problem will be there is very vague and this Problem is visualised on the ground that the owner of the premises has not given his consent for renewal of the licence. Inasmuch as the appellant is a statutory tenant protected under the T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, he continues to be a tenant until evicted as per the provisions of the said. Act. To say that a law and order problem will be created merely because the owner of the building has not given consent, in our opinion is very vague and that cannot be a ground for refusing the licence asked for. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is not able to effectively counter this argument. We are of the view, that the refusal to grant renewal of the licence is not based on relevant factors and as such the matter has to be remanded to the file of the Commissioner of Police, city of Madras, the third respondent, herein. for the purpose of disposal afresh.
5. In these circumstances, the writ appeal is allowed with a direction that the matter will be remanded to the file of the third respondent herein for the purpose of disposal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The third respondent is directed to dispose of the matter on remand within a month from this date. There will be no order as to costs,
6. Appeal allowed.