Delhi High Court - Orders
Kailash Budhiraja & Ors vs The Commissioner Excise & Anr on 2 December, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16554/2022 & CM APPLs. 52060/2022, 52061/2022
KAILASH BUDHIRAJA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Narveer Dabas, Advocate.
(M:9868272621)
versus
THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, SC(Civil)
with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Tapesh
Raghav and Ms. Mahak Rankawat,
Advocate for GNCTD.
(M:7827545811)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 02.12.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking de-sealing of property bearing no. 26, Block A, measuring 104 sq. yds., Jagat Puri, Delhi
- 110051.
3. The Petitioners are the landlords of the said property. The said property was let out by the Petitioners to Respondent No. 2 - M/s. Popular Spirits vide registered lease deed dated 18th October, 2021 for opening a liquor shop on the ground that Respondent No.2 had been granted a License for sale of liquor and related services under the Delhi Excise Policy 2021- 2022. The premises had been sealed on 15th July, 2022 by the Respondent No.1 - The Commissioner, Excise, Govt. NCT Delhi owing to the dues of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:07.12.2022 10:48:02 tenant i.e. Respondent No.2 which are not paid to the Excise Department.
4. Ld. Counsel for the parties have made submissions. The sealing in this case has taken place in view of the premises concerned being shown as the tenant's place of business. The Excise licence has been granted to the tenant and not to the landlord. There is no privity between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. The sealing having taken place due to alleged non- payment of license fee by Respondent No.2, proxy litigation by the landlords against the Excise Department cannot be entertained.
5. The remedies of Respondent No. 2 to seek de-sealing of the premises are left open. The remedies of the landlords to seek eviction of Respondent No.2 from the premises are also left open.
6. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners submits that he does not have the sealing order of the premises in order to enable him to challenge the same. Accordingly, copy of the sealing order is handed across by ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
7. With these observations the petition and all pending applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 2, 2022 dj/hh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:07.12.2022 10:48:02