Lawful occupation required for factory licence registration; disputed possession and inadequate proof justified rejection.

Lawful occupation of the premises was essential for registration and grant of a factory licence, and the applicant had to support its claim with documents evidencing possession. Because the property belonged to another party, the existing lessee was the lawful occupant, and the lease in favour of the applicant was only for obtaining registration, the applicant failed to show a valid right of occupation. The dispute over possession, including pending arbitration and civil proceedings, did not establish an entitlement to occupy the premises for licensing purposes. The rejection of the request for registration and a new factory licence was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for registration and grant of a new factory licence on the ground that it had not established lawful occupation of the premises was valid.

Analysis: The application for licence was examined in the context of the rival claims over the premises and the business transfer arrangement. The materials showed that the property belonged to the fourth respondent, that the third respondent was the lawful lessee, and that the lease created in favour of the petitioner was only for obtaining registration and did not confer any right of occupation. The governing rules required supporting particulars and documents evidencing occupation, and in the circumstances of an admitted dispute over possession, the petitioner was required to produce proof of occupation such as a patta, sale deed, valid lease deed or a subsisting rental arrangement. The prior proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the pending civil suit did not establish a right to occupy the premises for purposes of licence.

Conclusion: The rejection of the request for registration and grant of factory licence was upheld.

---