IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35665 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMED RAFI, PARAVELAKATHU VEEDU, NAZEEMA MANZIL, CPT JUNCTION, NETTAYAM, KACHANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HEALTH OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPRIYA, MELLEKUTTAN THAZHATHU VEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SRI K.S.KALKURA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 35665 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed for quashing Ext.P7 notice issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation wherein it is stated that the meat stall conducted by the petitioner will be closed on the reason that the same was conducted without a proper licence. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent Corporation granted licence to conduct the said shop years ago and this year also he has submitted an application for renewal of the licence. The learned counsel also submits that from 2003 onwards the 1st respondent Corporation is not receiving the licence fee. It is further submitted that the petitioner used to pay the profession tax for doing the business. In this context, the petitioner relies on Ext.P5 receipt. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the 3rd respondent has initiated proceedings under the Rent Control WPC 35665/07 2 Act for evicting the petitioner. The learned counsel points out that the matter is pending before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act. 4. It appears that the only ground on which the Corporation declined to entertain the application for renewal of licence is the opposition of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, as conceded by the 3rd respondent, is a statutory tenant and is liable to be evicted from the premises only in terms of Act 2 of 1965. The issue is covered by a decision of this Court in Marimuthu V. Director General of Police (1999(3) KLT 662). So long as the original licence was granted to the petitioner/tenant on the basis of consent given by the 3rd respondent or on the basis of the lease deed executed, insistence of fresh consent every year is not justified. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to take up the application for renewal of licence, if any, filed by the petitioner with notice to the 3rd respondent also and pass an early order on that application taking into account the principles laid down in 1999(3) WPC 35665/07 3 KLT 662 (Supra) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. When decision is taken, the same will be communicated to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 6. Status quo as on today will be maintained till orders are passed on the application, regarding the petitioner's business. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. mn.