IMPORTANT POINT
" The application was not filed in the individual capacity by any of the 4 partners of the firm but it was an application preferred by the Managing Partner C. Vijayan @ Raghavan-The partnership firm was the recognized tenant under the landlord, and therefore, they enjoy statutory protection in such matters.
" If any proceedings are initiated by the landlord to evict the tenant from the premises in question, the finding and directions contained in the impugned judgment would not have any bearing in any such proceeding- This would adequately safeguard the interest of the landlord in the event he is to proceed against the tenant for eviction or for any other reason.

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Sri. K.P. Dandapani, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant (landlord) in both these cases. Also heard Sri. Santhosh Poduval, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Thrissur. The respondent writ petitioner is represented by the learned Senior counsel Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon. For the sake of convenience the references in this judgment are from the records of W.A.No.2426/2018.

2. These Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 13.11.2018 in the W.P.(C) No.20554 of 2018 and the W.P.(C) No.31220 of 2018, which were respectively filed by the partnership firm M/s. Vijaya Jyothi Traders and its Managing Partner Sri. C. Vijayan @ Raghavan. The cases primarily related to the non-consideration of the application for a D & O (Dangerous & Offensive) licence applied by the petitioner. The Thrissur Municipal Corporation, however took the stand that the application cannot be considered in the absence of a consent from the landlord as is mandated by sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Act').

3. The basic contention of the petitioner is that there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, and therefore, obtaining a consent letter from the landlord must not be insisted, for consideration of the renewal of the licence.

4. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the matter as also the Civil Suits pending between the landlord and the tenant and the Municipal Corporation, issued direction to the Corporation to consider the application dated 24.10.2018 (Ext.P12) submitted by the petitioners for renewal of licence, without insisting for consent from the landlord. Opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the landlord while considering the said application was also ordered in the impugned judgment.

5. Assailing the legality of the said direction, the learned Senior counsel Sri. K.P. Dandapani representing the landlord would project that whenever an application is filed to obtain a licence for the first time, the production of the written consent of the owner of the premises along with the application is mandatory under Section 492(3) of the Municipal Act. He submits that in the instant case, the recognized tenant was the partnership firm M/s. Vijaya Jyothi Traders and since there was dissolution of partnership, the application filed by the Managing Partner could not have been considered either for fresh licence or for renewal of licence, without the written consent of the landlord as is mandated under Section-492(4) of the Municipal Act.

6. On the above aspect, it is important to note that the Ext.P12 application was not filed in the individual capacity by any of the 4 partners of the firm but it was an application preferred by the Managing Partner C. Vijayan @ Raghavan. Admittedly the partnership firm was the recognized tenant under the landlord, and therefore, they enjoy statutory protection in such matters.

7. In the above circumstances, it is not possible for us to support any requirement of obtaining a consent letter from the landlord, in order to process the writ petitioner's application for renewal of trade licence especially taking note of the strained relationship now prevailing between the landlord and the tenant.

8. On the above legal issue, we may benefit by referring to the pronouncement in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and another reported in [(2016) 14 SCC 263] where the Supreme Court on the issue of the renewal of a trade licence, stated that a tenant cannot be deprived of running a lawful business merely because the landlord withheld his consent, and further that, a valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.

9. In the above case itself, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the ratio laid down by this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662] where