Landlord consent is not needed for the renewal of a business license during active tenancy, as per existing legal principles.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to renew petitioner’s licence for the year 2025-2026 and continue to renew for subsequent years also, without the demanding consent from the 3rd respondent, irrespective of the pendency of Ext.P10 petition.

ii. dispense with filing of the English translation of vernacular documents.

iii. such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of Justice.

(SIC)

2. According to the petitioner, he is conducting a business in a building bearing Nos.TC 28/922 & 923 from 1977 onwards, on the basis of Ext.P1 rent deed executed by the then owner of the building. The petitioner obtained Ext.P9 licence to conduct business for the year 1978-79 and thereafter has been renewing the same every year. Later, the building was taken over by Bank of Madura, who executed Ext.P4 rent deed. Bank of Madura merged with the 3^rd respondent in the year 2002. The 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P7 lawyer notice to the petitioner asking him to vacate the premises. However, the petitioner did not vacate and he has been holding the building in hostile possession ever since the year 2006 is the submission. The 1^st respondent renewed the petitioner's licence till 2023-24 is the submission. Now, the 1^st respondent has refused to renew the licence on the ground that the 3^rd respondent Rent Control Petition. According to the petitioner, Ext.P12 communication of the Corporation is unsustainable. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. I also heard the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition and also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and Others [(2016) 14 SCC 263] . The counsel for the 3^rd respondent takes me through Ext.P11 Rent Control Petition. According to the counsel, the building is now in a dilapidated condition and the conduct of business is not possible. It is also submitted that there is a change of business by the petitioner.

5. Admittedly the petitioner is a tenant. Now the landlord is the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence. At that stage, Ext.P12 communication is sent by the Corporation stating that the petitioner has to produce the rent deed, and the 3^rd respondent objected the same. The Apex Court in Sudhakaran’s case observed like this:

8. After due consideration of the issues involved, we find merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The statutory provision already quoted above shows that the requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time. Renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining licence. 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. 9. In Marimuthu & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court observed :

“16. A statutory tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can be evicted only as per the provisions of the said Act, on the grounds enumerated t