IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29466 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: ZACHY GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. K.V. GEORGE, POTTAMKULAM, MERRY CHRISTY, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-686004.

BY ADVS.

ALEX.M.SCARIA A.J.RIYAS SARITHA THOMAS RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE KANJIRAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686507, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 THOMSON THOMAS, S/O. CHERIAN THOMAS, MADUKKAKUZHI HOUSE, T.B.

ROAD, KANJIRAPPALLY-686507.

BY ADVS.

V.K.SUNIL BIJU .C. ABRAHAM BHARATH MURALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to a deemed licence for conducting fish trade in the unit covered by Ex.P1 for a further period from 25.07.2021 and for a declaration that Ext.P5 objection is not sustainable in the light of Ext.P10 judgment. There is also a prayer to direct the 1^st respondent to issue a licence to the petitioner on merits on the application covered by Ext.P4 receipt ignoring Ext.P5 objection.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. The 2^nd respondent, who is the owner of the building, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner cannot be treated as sub-tenant since there is no registered lease agreement and that he is also not paying the rent and hence cannot be termed as a tenant as per the definition contained in the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is further argued that even if an unstamped document is to be accepted it has to be impounded under the provisions of law without which the written agreement cannot be considered as a lease agreement. The petitioner submits that he has submitted an application for renewal of Ext.P1 licence, but the same was not considered within the time fixed and as such he is entitled to deemed licence.

4. The 1^st respondent has filed a statement wherein it is stated that as per Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Issue of License to Factories, Trades and Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, a license shall be renewed on payment of the fee specified under Schedule II along with a self-certificate from the applicant within 30 days before the end of the year. It is submitted that the petitioner did not submit any application for renewal of permit within the time stipulated under Rule 10 and hence he is bound to pay additional fee as provided under Rule 19. It is submitted that the Panchayat has received an objection from the 2^nd respondent, which was also informed to the petitioner. The Panchayat further says that they have no objection to consider the application for renewal of licence, if the petitioner complies with the requirements of Rules 7, 10 and 19.

5. As far as the contention regarding the existence of lease is concerned the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent specifically says that the 2^nd respondent has already filed an eviction petition as R.C.O.P. No.5 of 2021 before the Rent Control Court, Kanjirappally. In such circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to say that there is no lease arrangement between the parties. In Sudhakaran V. Corpn. of Trivandrum & Anr. reported in [2016 (3) KLT 247], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time and that renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of existing licence during currency of tenancy, does not require such a consent. The Court further observed that even in 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 and that valid tenan