Important points:
The Secretary of the Municipality is guided by the Provisions of Act 1994, the Secretary cannot insist the legal heir of the tenant to secure consent from the landlord of the building on the premise that, the landlord of the building has informed the Municipality that the building is sublet by the legal heir to a third person-The Secretary of the Municipality has no power or authority to adjudicate the issue as to whether the legal heir of the original tenant has sublet the premises to any third person.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 18681/2019, challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 9.9.2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein i.e., one P.K.C. Mariyumma was allowed, holding that the Payyannur Municipality is bound to issue licence to the 1st respondent- tenant of the buildings belonging to the appellant, in accordance with law. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows.

2. First respondent's husband one T.K.P. Abdul Hameed Haji was running a business of footwear in rooms bearing Nos. PMC 22/783 and 791 (new numbers, PMC 19/1426 and 19/1431), belonging to the appellant. The licence was issued in the name of Abdul Hameed Haji, who died on 28.6.2018. Thereafter, according to the writ petitioner, she is managing the affairs of the shop with the help of a staff viz. Rafi. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the owner of the rooms is not in good terms with the writ petitioner especially after the death of Abdul Hameed Haji. Thereupon, the owner and her son want the writ petitioner, to vacate the room for their use.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that without seeking any legal remedy for evicting the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was harassed by the building owner and her son and when it became intolerable, writ petitioner filed O.S. No. 142/2018 seeking a decree against forcible eviction of the writ petitioner from the shop rooms. While so, the writ petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, Payyannur Municipality, during the 1st week of February, 2019 for renewal of the licence. All the required documents were given, however, the officials of the Municipality refused to accept the fee for renewal of licence stating that since the licensee is dead, a legal heir-ship certificate is to be produced for receiving the renewal fee and it is to be done by online only. Thereupon the writ petitioner approached the Village Officer, Padanna, for securing legal heir ship certificate and the said application is now pending consideration before the Tahsildar, Hosdurg.

4. In the meanwhile, the building owners approached the Municipal Authorities and conveyed that the building was sublet and the business is done without licence. It was accordingly that a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the Municipality asking the writ petitioner to show cause why action shall not be taken against the writ petitioner for conducting the business without licence, evident from Ext.P8 dated 21.6.2019. Apparently the writ petitioner has sent a reply explaining that there is no subletting and also stating that the application for legal heir ship certificate is pending consideration before the Village/Revenue Authorities. But the Municipal Authorities were not satisfied with the same and threatened closure of business establishment, which necessitated the writ petitioner to approach the writ Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner would fall into the meaning of tenant as defined under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Therefore, the legal position of the writ petitioner cannot be disputed. It was also found that the Municipality only needs to consider the legal position and nothing else and in view of the fact that the writ petitioner comes within the meaning of tenant as defined under the Act, 1965, there is no bar for the Municipality in issuing licence to the writ petitioner. It was also observed that if there is any dispute for possession or interest in the building, the parties are free to agitate before the Civil Court. It was accordingly that the Municipality was directed to issue licence to the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

6. The appeal is filed by the landlord basically contending that there is no illegality in rejecting the application for renewal of licence as per Ext.P8 by the Mun