JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be a tenant in possession of a building bearing Door No.9/1510 of the 1st respondent Municipality, belonging to the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of the building from 5.11.2012 on a daily rent of Rs.250/-. He claims that he is running an ice cream parlour and snack & tea shop in the building for which purpose, he says, he has purchased and installed a freezer unit, refrigerator, mixer, grinder, a gas stove, furniture, and vessels. The claim of the petitioner is that the business is being conducted under the name and style “Chocolate Cool & Hot”. His allegation in the writ petition is that he is sought to be evicted forcefully from the building by the 3rd respondent in connivance with respondents 1 and 2 and for that purpose, an application for renewal of licence (Ext.P5), submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the consent letter from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum reported in [2016 (3) KLT 247], to contend that no such consent is required as long as a valid tenancy is shown to be existing. The petitioner admits that the licence for conduct of the business had been issued by the 1st respondent in the name of the 3rd respondent even prior to the tenancy arrangement between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the licence continued to be renewed in the name of the 3rd respondent even after the tenancy arrangement. He further states that when forceful eviction was attempted, he had filed O.S.No.242 of 2021 before the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba praying for a decree of permanent injunction and the Civil Court has passed Ext.P1 order of interim injunction on

7.7.2021 which is still in force.

2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying the existence of any tenancy agreement. The existence of the suit, O.S.No.242 of 2021 is admitted. Ext.P2 commission report is also admitted. In Ext.P2, the Advocate Commissioner has found possession with the petitioner. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was served notice in the business premises of the 3rd respondent, which is situated opposite the building which is claimed to be in possession of the petitioner and being conducted under the name “Prabhath Bakery”. The 3rd respondent contends that the petitioner has never been conducting any business on his own, based on any licence issued by the 1st respondent Municipality and that since Ext.P5 can only be treated as a fresh application, the requirement of consent of the landlord cannot be waived by the 1st respondent. In answer to the contention raised on the basis of the judgment in Sudhakaran (supra), the 3rd respondent submits that the facts of the case do not even disclose the existence of a valid tenancy between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and hence the benefit of the observation in the judgment that a letter of consent cannot be insisted upon if there is a valid tenancy cannot be availed of by the petitioner.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit producing the application submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2021 and the communication issued on 21.10.2021 directing the petitioner to submit the consent letter from the building owner and other supporting documents.

4. Heard Sri R.Surendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Chandran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri P.K.Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has never been issued with any licence by respondents 1 and 2. As such, the application submitted by the petitioner for a licence cannot be treated as an application for renewal of an existing licence and can only be treated as a fresh application for a licence. In Sudhakaran (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as per Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, any