1. On public demand, including the persuasions of the Bar Association, a building was leased out to the Government on 3rd January, 1987, to house the Sub Court, Payyannur. A lease deed was thereafter executed on 16.12.1990, for a period of five (5) years therefrom, renewable on mutual consent for any further period and terminable on three (3) months' notice by either side after the period fixed, or in the event of shifting of the Court to a government building, whichever is earlier.

2. With the passage of time, the owners wanted to build two more floors above the existing structure, after making modifications to the ground floor. They were granted building permit on 29.6.1999. However, they could not commence construction until now, August 2009, since the Sub Court is yet to be shifted out of that premises.

3. While the owners waited for vacant possession of the building to carry out the construction, they had to keep the building permit renewed thrice, from 29.6.1999, extended up to 26.7.2008, for a span of nine years. They had also to execute lease deeds effective from earlier dates, obviously to enable disbursement of rent. After executing Ext.P4 agreement of lease on 23.02.2006, for a period of five (5) years from 3.01.2002, the learned District Judge issued Ext.P5 letter informing the landowners that the construction of the building for accommodating the Sub Court is in good progress and it is expected to be completed by 26.01.2007 and the Court would be shifted to the new building on such completion. In fact, that letter was issued on the basis of an office memorandum dated 9.10.2006, issued by the High Court. Unfortunately, the completion of the building got further delayed. On the representation on behalf of the landowners, the High Court issued office memorandum dated 6.6.2008 and following that, on 17.6.2008, learned District Judge issued Ext.P6, essentially requesting the land owners to wait till the court shifted to the new building and informing them that the construction of the new sub court building would be completed soon.

4. The land owners again made Ext.P7 representation, obviously facing the situation that they would be running out of time to commence construction of the building, in terms of the permit that stood renewed and extended up to 26.7.2008. It appears that the Bar Association drew up Ext.P8 resolution requesting the municipality to grant special permission to the land owners to make the construction, having regard to the delay in delivering the building back to them, after shifting the sub court. With this, the land owners applied to the municipal secretary. That was rejected as per Ext.P10 stating that the building permit was renewed from time to time for a total period of 9 years which is the maximum period for which a building permit could be kept alive even by renewal, in terms of Rule 15A(10) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the 'KMBR'.

5. This writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid decision and seeking a declaration that the construction of the building could not be commenced as permitted by the municipality only due to the failure to surrender the building in spite of repeated assurances and hence, for a further direction to re-consider the application for extension of the period to build in terms of the licences originally granted.

6. On facts, it needs to be noticed that the land owners had never intended the building to be made available for housing the sub court for all times to come. In fact, the renewal deeds would show that even those documents were executed long after each spell of continued occupation, essentially to enable release of rent and occupation charges. The materials on record contain the repeated statement by learned District Judge that the construction of the judicial complex is being completed. It is also stated by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the judicial complex is likely to be