IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29394 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAVURETH TRUST, P.O. BOX NO. 1076 PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE TRUSTEE, SHRI.GEORGE CHRISTOPHER. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI 31 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-31. 3. THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE KOCHI-31 4. A.SITARAMAN, RAM NIVAS, K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, AYYAPPAN KAVU, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29394 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a trust created by a parent with the child or children as beneficiaries and appointing the grandfather as the trustee. The trust holds title to a building in Cochin city. That is given to the 4th respondent for a commercial activity. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the said entrustment is only a licence and not a lease. May be so; may not be so. The Municipality Act, as interpreted by this Court, is not to be used in lieu of proceedings for eviction in accordance with law. I say this because once a person comes into occupation by the legitimate process of a lease or licence, continued requirement of the consent of the lessor or the licensor is not to be insisted upon for renewal of the municipal licence, including licence under D & O Rules, PFA Rules etc. Otherwise, the owners, including landlords, could easily push all occupants, who are licensees or lessees, under the cover of objecting to the renewal WPC.29394/09 Page numbers of municipal licence. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner, who seeks issuance of an order, declaring that the licence granted to the 4th respondent is non est in law or even to issue a mandamus to the first respondent municipal authority to recall the said licence to run a restaurant. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. After having dictated this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. I am not inclined to grant such leave. That request is rejected. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/10.