IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17908 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.T.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. P.M.HYDROSEKUTTY, AMBALATHUVEETIL THARAYIL, IRINGAPURAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.R.RAVEENDRANATH, S/O. RAMACHANDRA MENON, VAPPALAKALATHIL, GURUVAYUR. 3. GEETHA K.R., W/O. KOZHAPPILLI GOPI, SREELAKSHMI, KANATTUKARA, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 SRI.REJOY RAJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17908/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DT.19.11.1977. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT DT.10.2.2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE O.S.NO.179/2006 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.29.3.2006 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT OF ONE VELAYUDHAN. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DT.6.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.1.6.2006 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.15.6.2006 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER DT.15.6.2006 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.21.6.2006 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S.NO.179/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE EXTRACT ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17908 OF 2006-F ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner submits, he is the tenant of a shop room bearing door No.10/30(1) of Guruvayur Municipality. Ext.P1 is the rent deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the landlord. The said landlord is no more and respondents 2 and 3 herein are his legal heirs. It appears the petitioner was doing business without any licence in the premises. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has sub let the shop room and the sub lessee was doing business there. Whatever be that, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application dated 15.6.2006 before the 1st respondent Municipal Secretary, seeking licence for the said shop room for the financial year 2006-07. The said application was rejected by Ext.P10 order, on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the consent letter of the landlord in terms of Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Challenging that order, this Writ Petition was filed. 2. The petitioner submits, he being a tenant, is entitled to get WPC 17908/2006 2 licence without producing the consent letter of the landlord. In support of that submission, the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999(3) KLT 662]. The respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner is not doing any business in the said shop room and somebody else is doing business there. Therefore, the licence may not be renewed. 3. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that since the application for licence is submitted for the first time, the applicant must produce the consent letter of the landlord also. 4. Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act reads as follows: “492. General provisions regarding licences and permissions: (1).............. (3) Where any person intending to obtain a licence or permission for the first time and where the applicant is a person other than the owner of the premises in question, he shall, along with the application produce the written consent of the owner of the premises and the period of the licence shall not exceed the period, if any, specified in the consent.” This Court had occasion to consider the impact of the above provision WPC 17908/2006 3 on several occasions. It was held that for the renewal of licence every time the consent of the landlord was not necessary. In this case, the petitioner is in possession of the shop room on the strength of Ext.P1 rent deed. The said deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the then landlord, for running a business. So, the room was let out to the petitioner and he was put in possession for the specific purpose of doing business in that premises. Therefore, if the petitioner produces Ext.P1 rent deed, a further consent letter from the landlord is unnecessary. In view of the said position, Ext.P10 is quashed. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law without insisting for the consent letter of the landlord, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 5th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/ WPC 17908/2006 4