Landlord's consent for trade license issuance cannot be revoked for arrears of rent; denying the license violates the tenant's constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the following reliefs claimed by the appellant-writ petitioner have been rejected.

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to issue licence to the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P3 application, without insisting on the payment of arrears of rent.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy in brief are enumerated herein below:

Petitioner-tenant had entered into a rent agreement dated 1.7.2023, Ext.P1 with the second respondent-landlord and his wife for conducting a mobile service and training center in the shop bearing No.428 of Adoor Municipality at JB Mall. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was invested for renovating the rented premises. The consent was given on 1.9.2023 by the landlord, Ext.P2 for enabling the petitioner-tenant to submit an application under Section 492 (3) of the Kerala Municipal Rules and Regulations, 1994 for the purpose of obtaining trade licence from the concerned Municipality.

3. Accordingly, an application Ext.P3 dated 13.9.2023 was submitted before the Municipality for issuance of the trade licence. The Municipality, on receipt of the application vide communication dated 11.12.2023 informed the petitioner that the owner of the building has given an application dated 18.10.2023 for not granting the licence to the building which necessitated the petitioner to submit an application Ext.P5 stating that he has given a deposit of Rs.2 lakh after the tenancy agreement and apart from that, had also undertaken, renovation work at the cost of Rs.15 lakh. But again was replied vide notice dated 22.2.2024, Ext.P6 indicating that the petitioner-tenant acted contrary to the lease agreement with the building owner as the owner had given a statement that he had paid only Rs.17,500/- out of the monthly rent of Rs.35,000/-.

4. The learned Single Bench noticing all these factors as well as the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum ( 2016(3) KHC 803 ) to the fact that the tenant cannot be deprived of running a lawful business merely because the landlord has withheld the consent, dismissed the writ petition on the premise that the petitioner-appellant has not paid the arrears of rent to the landlord.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the terms and conditions of the rent agreement and consent letter was sufficient for the petitioner to obtain a trade licence having spent a substantial amount of compensation. In case of any default in the payment of money, respondent/landlord have accepted the remedy to seek ejectment on previous grounds including the arrears of rent. In fact as per the submission of Mr.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord, rent petition has been filed and eviction order has been passed.

5. On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appellant – petitioner is contemplating to file the appeal. Be that as it may. The decision culled out in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and anr, 2016(3)KHC803 is squarely applicable in the instant case for the reason that once the landlord has given the consent, the provisions of section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act,1994, leaves no manner of doubt that the trade license has to be issued and the landlord cannot withdraw the consent on the ground of arrears of rent for that he has accepted the remedy which already has been availed. There may be a situation where the tenant may clear the arrears of rent but for that purpose, cannot be prevented from running the business as it is the violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India for, substantial amount for renovation as well