The landlord's consent is only required for initial license applications, not for renewals under the Kerala Municipalities Act.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing the Trade license issued to the 2^nd Respondent as evidenced by Ext P-6.

ii) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the 1^st Respondent Corporation to revoke the trade license issued to the 2^nd Respondent as provided under Section 492 (9) of the Kerala Municipalities Act .

iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and allow this petition with all costs."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the land lord of the property which is in the possession of the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the lease period is over, and therefore the petitioner submitted an application to the Corporation authorities to cancel the license issued, because the consent given by the petitioner was over. The same was rejected by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. This Court perused the prayers in this Writ Petition. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to set aside Ext.P6 and to direct the 1^st respondent Corporation to revoke the trade license issued to the 2^nd respondent as provided under Section 492 (9) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act 1994’). The Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and another [ 2016 (3) KHC 803 ], considered this aspect in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “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 and Others (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 therein. Since the possession of the tenant is lawful, the landlord is not entitled to withhold his consent for the conduct of the business for which the premises were given on rent. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the landlord is purposefully and with mala fide intention withholding consent in spite of the directions from this Court. Under such circumstances, the Corporation also cannot insist upon production of written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuance of licence for the conduct of business in the premises in question. For carrying on business in ready made dresses a licence issued under S.492 of the Kerala Municipality Act is necessary. As on date, the petitioner is not having any licence to carry on such business. A person in occupation can be allowed to carry on a trade or business which requires a licence, only after obtaining such licence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as above, we direct the Corporation of Thiruva