IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23837 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.SARALA BHAI AMMA,AGED 67, W/O.NARAYANA KURUP,ANITHA BHAVAN, KAVANADU P.O.KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA P. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN OF KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,KOLLAM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23837/2010 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LAST RENEWED LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD OF 16/4/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 11/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 2/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF LICENSE FEE PAYABLE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-2011. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 1/07/2010 IN WP(C) NO.19768/10. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.112-9253/93 DTD. 15/07/2010. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.18102/2008 DTD. 17/06/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 23837 of 2010-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the licensee of a cinema theatre, viz. M/s. S.M.P. Palace, Kollam, which was being run on a lease arrangement for the last more than 45 years. The building is owned by Sree Moolam Thirunal Shashtiabdapoorthi Memorial Town Hall Trust. The licence was valid up to 11.6.2010. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for renewal of licence with all the required documents. The licence fee for the period 2010-2011 has also been remitted, according to the petitioner. 2. Earlier, this Court directed by Ext.P4 judgment, to consider the application and take a final decision. Ext.P5 is the communication received by the petitioner thereafter rejecting the application for renewal. The only reason stated therein is that the Trust is not functioning now and therefore the application for licence cannot be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a tenant of the building who is in possession of the building also. The petitioner has not been evicted in any valid proceedings by the Trust in question. The petitioner also disputes the statement made in Ext.P5 that the wpc 23837/2010 2 Trust is not functioning. 4. In the counter affidavit, what is stated is that the Mayor of the Corporation Council is one of the Trustees. Therefore, he is having personal knowledge about the Trust and as such the Council of the Corporation decided not to renew licence to the petitioner. 5. That the petitioner had been running the theatre for the last 45 years based on the valid consent by the owner, cannot be disputed. In the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999 (3) KLT 662), it was held that the Corporation cannot insist upon the tenant holding-over, the production of written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuance of licence for conducting business. Even going by the averments in the counter affidavit, the Trust is not functioning properly. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the application for renewal, this time also the consent from the Trust is produced. Evidently, the affairs of the Trust cannot evidently result in denial of the renewal of licence to the petitioner. Whether the Trust is functioning properly or not, is a matter entirely for the appropriate authorities/courts to consider. Unless and until the petitioner is evicted, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner is in wpc 23837/2010 3 possession of the property including the building wherein the theatre was being conducted. Therefore, the affairs of the Trust cannot be a matter for denying the application for renewal of licence. An application for renewal can only be considered in terms of the relevant rules in the matter. 6. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. The same is quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to renew the licence and issue the same to the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for payment of damages is left open. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/