J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021 Petitioner, a tenant of the 3rd respondent, has approached this Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps as mandated under the Municipalities Act for grant of trade licence to the petitioner without insisting for further consent or other documents from the landlord other than the rent agreement within a time limit fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner applied for trade licence to run a business of optical items, colour lab, medical items, etc. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner stating that unless the petitioner produces a written consent from the landlord and the identity proof, her application for trade licence cannot be processed further.

3. The petitioner would contend that she has entered into a tenancy agreement with the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P1 deed of tenancy. Subsequently, there was difference of opinion between the petitioner and the landlord and the landlord has now filed Ext.P2 Rent Control Petition invoking Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Being inimical towards the petitioner, the landlord is not providing his identity proof, to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the issue in the context of Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and has held in the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and another [2016 (3) KLT 247] that even in the case of application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. Valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in insisting for production of a written consent from the landlord for issuing trade licence.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit wherein they stated that as per Section 492 (3) and (4) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the petitioner is required to produce written consent from the landlord. According to respondents 1 and 2, sub-section (4) of Section 492 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because it relates only to the renewal of licence. Here, the petitioner has applied for a fresh trade licence. Therefore, in view of Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the petitioner has to produce written consent from the landlord.

6. Respondents 1 and 2 further pointed out that the application for trade licence was made by the petitioner only in the year 2021. The period of tenancy as provided in Ext.P1 deed of tenancy is only up to 30.05.2016. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as one holding the building on the basis of a valid tenancy.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. There is no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent though notice was served on him.

8. Ext.P1 deed of tenancy would show that the petitioner has come to possession of the building in question in a legal manner. The petitioner cannot be treated as a trespasser into the property. Ext.P1 deed of tenancy would also show that the tenancy was created for the purpose of running business of optical items, colour lab, medical items, etc.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and another (supra) that even in the case of application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the respondents shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 notice