IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 2670 OF 2014 PETITIONERS:

1 M/S.SHELTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE: VIII/113 B, ROOM NO.25, BUS STAND SHOPPING COMPLEX, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.PADMANABHAN KARTHA.

2 D.PADMANABHAN KARTHA S/O.SIVASANKARA MENON (LATE), MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SHELTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD., REGD.OFFICE VIII/113 B, BUILDING NO.25, BUS STAND SHOPPING COMPLEX, NORTH PARAVUR 683 513.

BY ADVS.

SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH SRI.D.R.BALAKRISHNA PRABHU RESPONDENTS:

1 NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY NORTH PARVAUR-683 513, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 SMT.T.RAJESWARI W/O.MOHANACHANDRAN, AGED 55, SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY - 683 513.

BY ADV ANOOP.V.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2022 This writ petition is filed basically challenging Exhibit P11 notice issued by the North Paravur Municipality, Ernakulam District claiming an amount of Rs.4,26,309/- from one K.G.Shaji, Kuruppasseri House, Vadakkekkara Village, Maliankara Muri, Ernakulam District, on the basis that the rent towards room No.25 in the municipal shopping complex occupied by him, is not paid by him.

2. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is that Sri.K.G.Shaji was the Managing Director of the Company in whose name the building was taken on rent and he is no more in the services of the Company. It is further pointed out that when the petitioner Company was threatened with eviction, it has approached the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur by filing O.S.No.243 of 1995 against the Paravur Municipality and Exhibits P2 judgment and P3 decree are passed in favour of the petitioner Company and therefore, the petitioner Company is entitled to continue in the premises till such time any action is taken by the Municipality in accordance with law.

3. Anyhow, those are all matters not for consideration of this court because the sole challenge made in the writ petition is against Exhibit P11 demand notice issued by the Secretary of the Paravur Municipality.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Paravur Municipality Sri.Anoop V. Nair submitted that there is no manner of landlord-tenant relationship or licensee- licensor relationship by and between the petitioners and the Paravur Municipality since the building was let out to Sri.K.G.Shaji. It is also pointed out that the rent amounts are due from the licensee.

5. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. The contention put forth by the petitioners in the writ petition is that there is no amount due from the petitioners to the Municipality towards the rent for occupying the building in question in the shopping complex of the Municipality. From Exhibit P2 judgment rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur in O.S.No.243 of 1995, it is clear that forcible eviction alone is restrained by granting a permanent prohibitory injunction. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of Exhibit P2 judgment in the aforesaid suit is relevant to the context, which reads thus:

“8. Though the defendant has chosen to contend that the plaintiff has not been recognised as a licencee by the defendant, no reliable material has been produced to rebut the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The documents produced by the plaintiff would conclusively establish that the defendant has treated the plaintiff as a licencee and their occupation of the premises as a licencee has well been recognised and approved by the defendant from long back. The tenure of the contention raised by the defendant exposes their eagerness to evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule premises. Such attempt on the part of the defendant has to be curbed by a proper interference of this court. All the above as