IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 113 of 2010(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.ABDUL RASHEED, SHAMEEMA MANZIL, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. MUHAMMED ABDULKHADER, S/O.MOIDEEN, BISMI MANZIL, PALLIPAZHITHETTATHIL, HOUSE NO.20, MUTHIRAPARAMBU NAGAR, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).113/2010 ....................... Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is a landlord who had let out his premises to the 2nd respondent for a fixed period of 11 months. According to the petitioner, the agreed period has expired and when the 2nd respondent sought renewal of licence by the 1st respondent, petitioner requested the 1st respondent not to renew the licence without his consent. To that request of the petitioner, by Ext.P4 reply, Corporation has stated that consent of the landlord is unnecessary. It is challenging Ext.P4, the the writ petition is filed. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999 (3) KLT 662), which was rendered in the context of the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1994, itself held hat the Corporation cannot insist upon a tenant for production of written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuance of licence. Therefore, the issue raised in this writ petition is fully covered by the said judgment. W.P.(C).113/2010 2 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in Vamakshy v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 53) and the Apex Court judgment reported in R.V.Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1996 SC 140) to contend that the decision rendered by the Division Bench needs reconsideration. However, what I notice is that both the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel, were rendered in the context of the provisions contained in the Cinemas (Regulation) Act and Rules which are materially different and therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not merit consideration. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs W.P.(C).113/2010 3