Landlord consent is not a mandatory requirement for the renewal of a trade license under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, as established by judicial precedent.

JUDGMENT

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

"a) Issue a writ of Mandamus , order or direction to the 4^th respondent to consider renewal application submitted by the petitioner and acknowledged by Ext.P8 in the light S. 492 of the Municipality Act and grant renewal of Ext. P1 licence to the petitioner ;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus , order or direction to the 4^th respondent to consider renewal application submitted by the petitioner and acknowledged by Ext. P8 in the light S. 492 of the Municipalities and grant renewal of Ext. P1 licence issued to the petitioner in the light of Ext. P4 and P8 certificates regarding the structural stability of the building occupied by the petitioner;

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus, order or direction to the 4^th respondent to obtain a certi structural stability from the Government engineering college, Thrissur or other similar institutions before taking decision on the structural condition of the building for which Ext. P1 licence is issued;

d) Issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction to quash Ext. P6 and 9 issued by the 2^nd respondent as violative of the sec.492 of the Municipalities Act and arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional e) Dispense with translation of vernacular documents produced as exhibits in the writ petition. AND f) Pass such other and further orders as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner’s application for renewal of license to run a medical shop is kept pending by the 2^nd respondent in spite of compliance with all the requirements under Section 492 and 443 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, is the submission. Now, in the K-SMART portal, it is stated that the application has been rejected without assigning any reason. According to the petitioner, the application was not considered on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the consent of the landlord, who is the 4^th respondent. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum [2016 (3) KLT 247 (SC)]. 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 Municipality and the counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner originally obtained the license, as evident by Ext.P5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of trade license. It seems that the application has not been processed because the consent of the landlord was not obtained. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran’s case (supra), consent form the land lord is not necessary for renewal of a license application. Therefore, the application is to be reconsidered and orders are to be passed thereon without insisting on the consent of the landlord, if it is otherwise in order.

5. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that the building is in a dilapidated condition. That is not reason to reject an application for renewal of license. The Municipality is free to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law as far as the condition of the building is concerned.

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

1. Ext.P17 is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent is directed to reconsider the renewal application as evident by Ext.P16 without insisting on the consent from the land lord, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3. Till then the status quo as on today shall continue.

4. Before passing o