The court clarifies the necessity for evaluating the entitlement of license holders to benefits under a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package, akin to those received by commercial tenants.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellants, who are the State of Kerala and their functionaries, assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court only because of one observation, namely, that while a Rehabilitation Package is considered for the party respondents / writ petitioners in terms of the judgment, "they ought to be at least equated with commercial tenants mentioned in Clause 11 of Ext.P11 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package" (sic).

2. Smt.N.Sudhadevi - learned Special Government Pleader (LA), argued that, when the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider including the party respondents / writ petitioners in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package, its compliance could be done only after evaluating all relevant facts; but no condition, that they should be considered as “commercial tenants”, could have been imposed. She contended that, even while the appellants are ready and willing to comply with the directions in the judgment, they face a predicament because, it directs the 3^rd among them to take a decision only as per the observations therein, which includes the aforesaid. She prayed that, therefore, this appeal be allowed and the observation of the learned Single Judge that the party respondents / writ petitioners must be "at least equated with commercial tenants", be vacated.

3. Smt.Thulasi K. Raj - appearing for the party respondents / writ petitioners, however, argued that her clients are not "small traders" as now sought to be declared in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package; but have also been running commercial activities, under a licence obtained from the Municipality and have continued to do so for over two decades. She pointed out that, the learned Single Judge has dealt with this aspect in paragraph 7 of the judgment, finding on facts that all of them have been operating under a valid licence for almost twenty years; thus concluding that they are also entitled to apposite Rehabilitation Compensation. She contended that, since persons like her clients are not included in Ext.P11 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package, the learned Single Judge only directed that it be done so; making an observation that benefits offered to the category of “commercial tenants” be considered in their favour. She predicated that her clients are entitled to such benefits since, though they are operating under licence - which alone is permissible under the Kerala Municipality Act - the characteristics of their engagement is that of a tenant, particularly when they have also made large investments and have continued on the premises for a long duration of time; being thus dependent on it exclusively for their sustenance and that of their workers. She concluded saying that, it is without considering any of these aspects and based on a misconceived notion and presumption that persons like her clients can only be "small traders", solely since they are licensees under the Municipality, that the impugned benefits alone were given to them, which is an exiguous sum of Rs.50,000/- at the highest.

4. We have evaluated the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the touchstone of the various materials on record.

5. Most of the facts involved in this case are without contest.

6. That the party respondents / writ petitioners were licensees operating businesses in buildings of the Alappuzha Municipality, is expressly admitted. That the party respondents / writ petitioners were running businesses in the licenced premises for nearly twenty years is also without contest.

7. The sole question in controversy, therefore, is whether, when they a