Consent from the landlord is mandatory for new restaurant licenses when original licenses are cancelled; renewals do not carry the same requirement.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2025

Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. WP(C) No.16774 of 2022 is filed by a person who has developed ailments after having food from the hotel run by the 4^th respondent in the name and style ‘Al-Raidan Family Restaurant and Saudi Kuzhimanthi’. Petitioner would contend that in Ext.P5 order there is a finding by the Municipality that the hotel is being run without getting any license from the Municipality, and that contaminated water is being flown into public place, and a direction was issued to the 4^th respondent to shut down the hotel within 48 hours. Petitioner would contend that it is due to the influence of the 3^rd respondent, Chairman of the Pattambi Municipality, that no further action was taken in the matter. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking implementation of Ext.P5 order.

3. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that the restaurant had been running from 2002 onwards after obtaining license from the Pattambi Municipality, and the license was issued in the name of another partner of the firm, Mr.Abdul Sathar. It is contended that license was issued till 2017-18. It is further submitted that the 5^th respondent landlord was trying to evict the 4^th respondent from the said premises, and the present writ petition is one filed to achieve the said intention of the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent would submit that the restaurant was closed for some time in the year 2020-21 due to the covid pandemic. Thereafter, an application for renewal of license was submitted which was received by the respondent Municipality as evident from Ext.R4(f). Based on a complaint filed by the landlord contending that no consent has been obtained for renewing the license, Ext.R4(g) proceedings were initiated directing the 4^th respondent to close down the business, against which WP(C) No.18464 of 2022 was filed, wherein Ext.R4(h) interim order was passed. Petitioner submits that based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [ 2016 (3) KHC 803 ] consent of the landlord is not at all required so long as the tenancy is prevailing.

4. WP(C) No.18468 of 2022 is filed by the owner of the hotel challenging Ext.P7 order, wherein the petitioner was directed to close down the hotel since no consent has been obtained from the landlord. Petitioner would contend that he along with other partners were conducting a restaurant at Pattambi and have obtained license from then Pattambi Grama Panchayat in the year 2002, and later the partnership deed was reconstituted as per Ext.P1 and going by Ext.P1, application for license could be applied in the name of any of the partner for and on behalf of the firm and that shall be the property of the firm. That is how Ext.P2 license was issued in the name of Mr.Abdul Sathar. The restaurant was run after obtaining necessary license and clearances, but due to the outbreak of Covid-19, the restaurant was closed down for some time, and later by Ext.P6 the application for renewal of license was submitted on 21.04.2022. Along with the same, a consent letter of the owner of the building was also produced and since there was some dispute between the petitioner and the landlord, an objection was made by the landlord before the Municipality that the landlord has not given consent and the consent letter produced by the petitioner is a forged one. Thereupon Ext.P7 communication was issued directing the petitioner to close down the