IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2794 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAMLA BEEVI, SALAM NIVAS, THOPPICHANTHA, PALAMKONAM, KEEZHATTINGAL, CHIRAYNIKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHAMNAS, D/O.RAMLA BEEVI, SALAM NIVAS, THOPPICHANTHA, PALAMKONAM, KEEZHATTINGAL, CHIRAYNIKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHAFINAS, D/O.RAMLA BEEVI, SALAM NIVAS, THOPPICHANTHA, PALAMKONAM, KEEZHATTINGAL, CHIRAYNIKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASHRAF, S/O.ALIYAR KUNJU, KALTHIL VEEDU, THAZHEMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PROPRIETOR, AVANI COLLECTIONS, GRAMAM ROAD, ATTINGAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).2794/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The prayer of the petitioners is to require the 1st respondent not to renew the licence granted to the 2nd respondent except with the consent of the petitioners who are the landlords. Even as per the pleadings in the writ petition, petitioners have let out the building in question to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, the period of the agreement expires on 16.2.2010 and therefore, any renewal thereafter, has to be only with their consent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act ('the Act' for short) and contends that any renewal beyond the period can only be with their consent. This issue has been considered by this Court in the judgment Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999 (3) KLT 662), where it has been held that consent of the land lord is not necessary for renewal of a licence granted to a tenant. That W.P.(C).2794/10 2 apart, even as per Section 492(3) of the Act relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, consent of the landlord is necessary for grant of a licence and not for its renewal. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs