IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10086 of 2009(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.G. JOHN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. C.P. GEORGE, CHAMMANIKKODATH HOUSE, KALOOR, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI -17. BY MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE. MS.V.SHYLAJA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. COCHIN CORPORATION, REP. BY SECRETARY, PARK AVENU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM,. 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENU ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.S. RAMESH BABU, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.10086 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the tenant of a room bearing Corporation Door No.36/3106 of Kochi Corporation for the last more than five years. The landlady has been trying to evict the petitioner from that room. The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 decree from the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam against forceful eviction. The petitioner alleges that, however, the landlady prevailed upon the respondents to prevent the petitioner from continuing the business in the shop room. Ext.P3 notice was issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to stop the business which according to the petitioner is indirectly to help the landlady to evict the petitioner. The Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam has passed Ext.P4 order of injunction against Ext.P3 notice, which is pending. The period of licence expired on 28.2.2009 in the meanwhile. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application dated 21.2.2009 to renew the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that no orders are being passed on Ext.P5. W.P.(C)No.10086/09 2 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also. 3. I am of opinion that the dispute between the tenant and the landlay cannot be a ground for the Corporation not to consider the application for renewal of the licence submitted by the petitioner. The pendency of the suit also cannot be a ground for non-renewal of lience. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the landlady as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue to run the business. However, I make it clear that the dispute between the petitioner and the landlady shall not be a reason for not renewing the licence, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to such renewal. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.10086/09 3