A petitioner can seek license renewal considerations while primary landlords' consents are under dispute, following legal principles established in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue writ of certiorari or order or direction or any other appropriate writ quashing Exhibit-P5;

ii. Declare that the petitioner cannot be deprived of running the restaurant in building No. 5-313/3 of North Paravur Municipality merely because the 4th and 5th respondents withheld their consent;

iii. To dispense with the translation of the documents in vernacular language;

iv. Such other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is running a restaurant under the name and style ‘Majlis’ in a building bearing No.5-313/3 of North Paravur Municipality. According to the petitioner, he is having a valid licence from the Municipality till 31.03.2025. Respondents 4 and 5 are the landlords. There was some dispute between the petitioner and the landlords. Consequently, when the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence, Ext.P5 is issued by the Municipality stating that consent from the landlord is necessary. At that stage, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

12.09.2024, this Court passed the following order:

“Issue notice before admission to respondent Nos.4 and 5.

The learned Standing Counsel seeks time to get instructions.

Post on 11.10.2024.

The operation of the petitioner’s hotel shall not be disturbed during the validity of the licence till March, 2025.”

5. The above order was extended regularly by this Court. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here indefinitely. The petitioner can be allowed to file a renewal application and there can be a direction to consider the same in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (3) KHC 803] .

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The petitioner is free to file appropriate application for renewal of licence before the 2^nd respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. If such an application is filed, the 2nd respondent will consider the same in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (3) KHC 803] , as expeditiously possible, at any rate, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/-