SUDHAKARAN versus CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR.
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 1043, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2016] 4 S.C.R. I 043 
SUDHAKARAN 
v. 
CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5435 of2016) 
JULY05,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Kera/a Municipality Act, 1994 - s.492(3) - Requirement of 
consent of landlord - For obtaining licence - Whether required 
only when the licence is obtained for the jirst time or also at the 
time of its renewal - Held: As per s.492(3) requirement of consent 
of landlord is required only when the tenant intends to obtain a 
licence for the first time - Such consent is not required for renewal 
of the licence - However, even for obtaining the licence for--the first 
time, applicant-tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful busi-
ness merely because landlord withheld the consent - Valid tenancy 
itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the 
premises by the tenant - Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1965. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The statutory provision i.e. s. 492(3) of Kcrala Mu-
nicipality Act, 1994 shows that the requirement of consent of 
landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a li-
cence for the first time. Renewal or subsequent application for 
obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, 
during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining 
licence. Even in the case of application for obtaining licence for 
the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of tunning lawful 
business merely because the
landlord withheld the consent. Valid 
tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate 
use of the premises by the tenant. [Para 8) [1047-A-B] 
Marimuthu & Ors. v. D.GP. & others (1999 3 KLT 
662) - approved. 
Case Law Reference 
(1999 3 K.LT 662) 
approved 
Para6 
1043 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5435 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2013 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Ernakulam in W. A. No. 356 of2013. 
Raghunath, Adv. for the Appellant. 
P. V. Dinesh (For Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj), Adv. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 
I. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.356 of 
2013 in C.W.P. No.9843 of201 I dated 06.03.2013 whereby the High 
Court has held that the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary 
for renewal of tenant's licence for running a hardware shop. 
2. Short question involved in this appeal is the interpretation of 
Section 492 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which reads as 
under: 
"(3) Where any person intending to obtain a licence or per-
mission 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. " 
3. Facts of the case are not in dispute. Appellant is the tenant of 
suit premises in Trivandrum District of Kerala since 01.06.200 I. He 
was issued a licence with the consent of the landlord to run hardware 
business on 22. I
0.200 I by the village panchayat in question. His appli-
cation for renewal was rejected on the ground that he did not produce 
consent of the landlord. But the Tribunal for Local Self Government 
Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram vide order dated 21" March, 2011 up-
held the plea of the appellant that the consent of the landlord was re-
quired when applying forthe first time. Renewal cannot be refused only 
on the ground that the fresh consent was not produced by the statutory 
tenant. A person once inducted as tenant continued as statutory tenant 
by virtue of statutory provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
SUDHAKARAN v. CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR. 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
Control) Act, 1965 till the tenancy is terminated in acc?rdance with law. 
The operative order of the Tribunal is as follows : 
"15. It is to be noted in this context that the Revision Peti-
tioner has not applied for a licence for the jirst time, I al-
ready said that the petitioner has been running the trade on 
the basis of a valid licence at least up to 31.3.2008. Under 
Section 492(3) of the Kera/a Municipality Act, a consent of 
the owner is needed only for obtaining licence for the first 
time. Since the petitioner has not applied for licence for the 
first time the Corporation cannot impose a condition for ob-
taining a consent from the landlord. The ground for rejec-
tion does not appeal to me. 
16. It is to be noted that on expiry of the original lease pe-
riod the petitioner continues as a statutory tenant or tenant 
holding over. The Corporation cannot insist upon such a 
tenant for production of a written consent from the landlord 
for the purpose of issuing of the licence. A statutory tenant 
can be evicted from the leased premises only in accordance 
with the various provisions contained in the Kera/a Build-
ings (Lease mid Rent Control) Act 1965. It appears that the 
Corporation is dancing to the tunes of the landlord or has 
become a puppet in the hands of the landlord in insisting for 
a consent. It is quite evident and clear that landlord will 
never give consent. The idea of the landlord
is to see that the 
trade being conducted by the petitioner is stopped forever 
and he vacates the premises. With such a wicked idea the 
landlord is attempting to evict the petitioner not in accor-
dance with the provisions of lmv but through indirect illegal 
means and unfortunately the Corporation has acted in a way 
actively aiding the said attempt. " 
4. The above view was upheld by the learned Single Judge of the 
High Court as follows : 
"2. It seems that a Rent Control Petition is pending before the 
Rent Controller at Trivandrum for evicting the 2'"1 respondent 
and therefore the finding of the Tribunal is justified. Apart 
from that there is no provision which requires an existing ten-
ant, to obtain consent from the landlord every time renewal 
1045 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
application is filed. This position is covered by the Division 
Bench judgment of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director Gen-
eral of Police (1999 (3) KLT 662). That being the situation, 
I do not think that there is any illegality in the order passed 
by the Tribunal. " 
B 
5. On further appeal by Respondent No.2- Landlord, the Division 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Bench took a contrary view and held that on expiry of the existing licence, 
the tenant has to seek a fresh licence for which fresh consent of the 
landlord was required. It was observed : 
"4. Validity of the earlier licence undisputedly was till 
31.3.2008. Later, renewal was sought only on 25.5.2009, 
that too to the President of the Panchayat. This cannot be 
treated as a proper application for renewal. Subsequently, 
on 10.8.2010 he filed a .fi·esh application for licence, there-
fore, neither letter dated 25.5.2009 nor application dated 
10.8.2010 was a proper application for renewal of the ear-
lier licence as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 
492 of the Kera/a Municipalities Act. If the earlier licence 
comes to an end on 31.3.2008, in the absence of making a 
renewal application within 30 days before expiry of validity 
of the existing licence, the tenant cannot get the benefit of 
renewal of licence and it has to be only a fresh licence. Once 
it is a fresh licence, permission or consent of the landlord is 
required as indicated in sub-section (3) of
Section 492 of the 
Kera/a Municipalities Act. " 
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel 
for the appellant submits that the view taken by the Division Bench of 
the High Court is patently erroneous and is contrary to the statutory 
provision referred to above. The learned Single Judge has followed the 
judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Mari11111tlm & Ors. versus 
D.G.P. & otlters (1999 3 KLT 662). The Division Bench failed to 
advert to the earlier said judgment. It is also pointed out that reference 
to clause (5) of Section 492 in the judgment of the Division Bench appears 
to be mistaken. 
7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has supported 
the vie\\'. taken in the impugned judgment. 
8. After due consideration of the issues involved, we find merit in
SUDHAKARAN v. CORP. OF TRIYANDRUM & ANR. 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The statutory provision 
already quoted above shows that the requirement of consent of landlord 
is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first 
time. Renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry 
of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, 
is not applicable for obtaining licence. Even in the case of application 
for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of 
running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. 
Valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate 
use of the premises by the tenant. 
9. In Marimutlm & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of the High 
Court observed : 
"J6. A statutory tenant under the Kera/a Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act can be evicted only as per the provi-
sions of the said Act, 011 the ground1· enu111erated therein. Since 
the possession of the tenant is lm1ful, the landlord is not en-
titled to withhold his consent for the conduct of the business 
for which the premises were given on rent. Jn the instant case, 
we are satisfied that the landlord is purposefully and with 
malafide intention withholding consent inspite of the direc-
tions from this court. Under such circumstances, the Corpo-
ration also cannot insist upon production of written consent 
from the landlord
for the purpose of issuance of licence for 
the conduct of business in the pre111ises in question. For car-
rying on business in readymade dresses a licence issued un-
der Sec.492 of the Kera/a Municipality Act is necessary. As 
on date, the petitioner is not having any licence to carry on 
such business. A person in occupation can be allowed to carry 
on a trade or business which requires a licence, only after 
obtaining such licence. Jn view of the facts and circumstances 
of the case as above, we direct the Corporation of 
Thiruvananthapuram to consider Ext.P7 application for li-
cence without insisting upon the production of a written con-
sent of the owner of the premises and pass appropriate or-
ders after giving an opportunity to the petitioners or their 
representative or their advocate, within two weeks from to-
day. The petitioners are at liberty to file any further docu-
ments, if need be, before the Corporation authorities. The 
1047 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1048 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 4 S.C.R. 
Corporation shall pass a reasoned order after hearing the 
11ecessmy parties and communicate the same to the petition-
ers within two weeks from today. We make it clear that till 
such time the petitioners shall not conduct the textile busi-
ness in the premises in question. Ext.PS order of the Corpo-
ration of Thiruvananthapuram is set aside and Ext.P7 is re-
stored to file for fresh consideration as directed above. "' 
I 0. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal and the learned Single 
Judge is the correct understanding of the import of Section 492 (3) of 
the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 (supra). The Division Bench erred 
in interfering with the said view. 
11. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the 
Division Bench and restore the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the 
learned Single Judge. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed.