A statutory tenant, continuing in possession after lease expiry but protected by Rent Control legislation, is not required to obtain the landlord's consent for the renewal of a trade or business license.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Exhibit P-10 order passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same

II. To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to insist for owners consent for renewal of License for his Home Stay.

III. To dispense with the translation of vernacular documents.

IV. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner, along with one Vikash Sharma, formed a Limited Liability Partnership in the name of "Hospitality Heights" LLP and is conducting a hotel and lodging within the limits of Varkala Municipality, is the submission. The same is conducted in a rented premises owned by the 4th respondent. The petitioner, along with the above-mentioned Sharma, entered into a rental agreement with the 4^th respondent on 1/11/2022 for the building bearing No. 28/255, namely "Hillview," situated at Thiruvambadi Road, Varkala. Exhibit P1 is the rent agreement. As per the terms and conditions in Exhibit P1, the petitioner renovated the building by furnishing the rooms to the standards of a five-star facility, is the submission. The petitioner states that he and his partner spent more than 17 lakhs on furnishing the rooms. After the same, the petitioner obtained a license from the Varkala Municipality to conduct hospitality and accommodation services at the said premises, having door number 28/255. Exhibit P2 is the license issued by the Varkala Municipality in favour of the petitioner. As per Ext. P2, the validity of Exhibit P2 is from 8/3/2024 to 7/3/2025.

3. After the expiry of the period of tenancy, the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent to renew the rent deed, is the submission. But the 4^th respondent refused to renew the rent deed, and hence the petitioner is continuing as a statutory tenant in the said building is the further submission. When the 4^th respondent tried to forcibly evict the petitioner, the petitioner, along with his partner, preferred OS No. 352/25 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala, and obtained an injunction order (Exhibit P3) on 25.10.2025. In this regard, the petitioner received a Caveat from respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, stating that they are the present owners of the property and that they purchased it from the 4^th respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed another suit as OS No. 427/25 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala, against the forceful eviction by respondent Nos. 5 to 7, and an injunction application against the same is also pending in that suit, as submitted.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the license physically, and the petitioner received Exhibit P5 notice from the Municipality stating that the petitioner had not submitted the consent letter from the owner of the building for renewing the license. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted a renewal application physically for renewal of license again is the submission. But, the petitioner had not produced the consent letter from the owner because the owner of the property is in loggerheads with the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to submit the application through K-Smart, along with the owner's consent, as evidenced by Exhibit P6. On receipt of Ext.P6, the petitioner again submitted the renewal application through K-Smart, and the required fee was also paid. Exhibit P7 is the acknowledgement of the application submitted through K-Smart. Thereafter, the