Gujarat High Court Allows Restaurant To Approach Municipality After Being Sealed For Selling Non-Veg, Flouting Lease Condition

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 16) allowed a restaurant, which had been sealed on allegations of causing nuisance by selling non-vegetarian food in violation of the lease agreement, to submit an undertaking to the Anand Municipal Corporation for de-sealing, directing that the same be considered in accordance with law.

The court was hearing a petition challenging a notice dated 2-12-2025 under which the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises (shop in question) within 10 days failing which action of sealing under Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations (GPMC) Act has been indicated. The court was told the premises had been sealed. The petitioner was given the premises on lease by the corporation wherein he was running a restaurant.

Justice Mauna M Bhatt while dictating the order took note of the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation.

The court said, "If it is perused, condition no. 4 refers to prohibition on use of non-vegetarian items...The lease agreement further refers that in breach of any of the conditions of the lease agreement, the Corporation is entitled to get possession without issuance of any notice to lease. In this case admittedly the premises in question is in ownership of respondent corporation and the petitioner is a leasee vide lease agreement dated 18-6-2016. Further the license which has been granted to the petitioner also refers to vegetarian and non-vegetarian restaurant and from condition no. 4 it prima facie appears that there is prohibition of non-vegetarian food along with other prohibitions. The agreement also refers to discontinuation of possession without notice".

"Moreover Section 376A GPMC Act refers to power to stop use of premises where such use is dangerous or causes nuisance. In the above context if submission of respondent corporation is understood then their case is that on account of the school running on first floor of premises, where small children are studying, it causes nuisance therefore such notice was issued. However noticing that procedure needs to be followed it is open for respondent corporation to give notice for possession as provided under provisions of the Act if they deemed it appropriate to do so. With regard to prayer made on behalf of petitioner for opening of the seal it is open for the petitioner to file undertaking and same shall be considered in accordance with law," the court said.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice is beyond provisions of the Act because none of the provisions of GPMC act permit to evict the petitioner from the premises. If the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner has breached the conditions of lease agreement the appropriate action under civil law is required.

It was submitted that the petitioner is in lawful occupation and paying rent regularly and so the notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. The shop in question is used for restaurant purposes by the petitioner.

The counsel for the Corporation said that the notice is clear which refers to breach of condition no. 4 of lease agreement. He relied upon Section 376A of GPMC act where Commissioner is empowered to initiate such action in cases of nuisance.

Section 376A stats that wherever the Municipal Commissioner is of opinion that the use of any premises for any of the purposes specified in Section 376(1) is "dangerous to life, health or property or is causing a nuisance" either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which the use is made and such danger or nuisance should be immediately stopped, the Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 376, require the owner or occupier of the premises to stop such danger or nuisance within such time specified in such requisition as the Commissioner considers reasonable.

In the event of the failure of the owner or occupier to comply with such requisition, the Commissioner may himself or by an officer subordinate to him cause such use to be stopped.

Referring to the condition no. 4 of lease agreement the counsel for Corporation submitted that there is absolute breach of lease agreement and therefore notices were appropriate. Moreover lease agreement stated that in event of breach of any of the conditions, the corporation is free to initiate action without issuance of notice.

It was submitted that the lease agreement being a contractual agreement between parties, as per Section 37 of Contract Act, the conditions therein are binding to both parties.

The plea was disposed of.

Case title: MOHAMMED ASIFBHAI SELIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

R/SCA/17120/2025