IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2485 of 2005(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, NILAMEL VEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. G.PRAKASH, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL AARYAS, TC.9/676, VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALA M P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREELAKSHMI, C-9, R.N.P.LANE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. FOR R2 SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.S.L.SAJI FOR R1 MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2485/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.H11/H10/41710/01 DATED 03/02/2004 OF R2. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24/03/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP (C) NO.6329/04. P3 : COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.H11-H10/41710/04 DATED 04/09/2004. P5 : COPY OF R.P.NO.2/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. P6 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 16/10/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P5 REVISION PETITION. P7 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY R2. P8 : COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 03/12/2004. P9 : COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.52/04/LSGD DATED 05/02/2004. P10 : COPY OF RENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2485 of 2005 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Revision Petition No.2/2004. 2. The petitioner is the owner of building No.TC9/676. In respect of the said building, the 1st respondent herein made an application for renewal of trade licence to carry on hotel business. According to the 1st respondent, he was carrying on the business as a tenant. Application made by him to the Corporation was rejected. His appeal to the Council was also rejected. It was against that decision, the 1st respondent filed R.P.No.2/2004. By Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent is a tenant of the building in question. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Corporation rejecting his application for renewal of the licence and directed that the licence shall be renewed for the year 2003-04 for running hotel in the building. It is challenging Ext.P8 that the petitioner landlord has filed this writ petition. WP(C) No.2485/2005 -2- 3. The contention raised by the petitioner is mainly that the 1st respondent is not a tenant of the building. According to the petitioner, he is only a trespasser, and that the payments made by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, were made in discharge of certain other liabilities, which the 1st respondent had to the petitioner. 4. However, a reading of Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal had adverted to the entire facts and evidences that were available before Tribunal and it is on that basis the Tribunal had arrived at the finding that the 1st respondent is the tenant of the building in question. Having regard to the materials, on the basis of which the Tribunal has arrived at such a finding, in my view, the said finding of the Tribunal cannot be said as one contrary to the evidence, or perverse for any reason warranting to be interfered with proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The 2nd grievance of the petitioner is regarding the direction of the Tribunal requiring the Corporation to renew the licence. As already seen, rejection of the application for licence was on the ground that the 1st respondent is not a tenant of the building WP(C) No.2485/2005 -3- in question. This finding has been reversed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Corporation is bound to reconsider the application in accordance with law, and if there is any other sustainable reason, the Corporation is also free to take any appropriate decision in the matter. Therefore, the positive direction of the Tribunal requiring the Corporation to renew the licence cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the Tribunal should have directed the Corporation to reconsider the application made by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P8 order requiring the Corporation to renew the licence is quashed. The Corporation is directed to reconsider the application made by the 1st respondent for licence for the year 2003-04 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. It is also directed that before final orders are passed, notice shall be given to the petitioner and the 1st respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg