SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
AMIABLE INNOVATIONS – Appellant
Versus
KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28267 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU
For the Respondents: SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH, SC, SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SRI.SRIVIDYA K, SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, SRI.K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR

Consent from a landlord is not required for the renewal of licenses if they were previously granted.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks to quash notices regarding rejection of license renewal, based on previous judgments asserting landlord consent is unnecessary for renewal. Respondents argue lack of landlord NOC is valid due to lease terms. Court concluded past renewals validate the petitioner's rights, ruling the Municipal Corporation must reconsider renewal without landlord consent.

Result: Exts.P8 & P10 set aside.

Table of Content
1. license renewal without landlord consent. (Para 1 , 2)
2. previous renewals affirm rights. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P8 & P10 notices, whereby the application seeking renewal has been rejected. In Ext.P8 the petitioner was directed to close down the unit stating that the unit is functioning without any license. As per Ext.P10 the petitioner was informed that the license could be renewed only after getting a consent letter from the owner of the building, the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner, relying on the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum [ 2016 (3) KHC 803 ] as also the judgment in Maraimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 KHC 652], submits that no consent of the landlord is required for renewal of the license and such a consent is required only when the person intends to obtain license for the first time.

2. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submits that since the No Objection Certificate has not been obtained from the landlord, the renewal application has not been considered. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the it is contended that the lease was only for a period of 11 months and that no consent was granted to the petitioner for further extension of the license and, therefore, the stand taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation is perfectly in order.

3. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

4. Admittedly, the license was granted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation as evident from Ext.P3 and thereafter it was renewed without any default till 2021. It is settled law by the judgment in Sudhakaran [supra] that consent of landlord is not required for renewal of license and, therefore, the stand taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation cannot be accepted.

Accordingly, Exts.P8 & P10 notices are set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation to reconsider the application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner without insisting for a consent from the landlord and renew the license, if the application is otherwise in order.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top