IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
K.V. Shiraz – Appellant
Versus
Pathanamthitta Municipality – Respondent
WP(C) No. 16396 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges denial of trade license renewal due to lack of landlord consent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. municipality must process renewal without requiring landlord consent per established case law. (Para 3 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:-
“A. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st Respondent to permit the Petitioner to file application for renewal of Ext.P2 license without production of consent letter from the 3rd Respondent and renew Ext.P2 license, B. To dispense with the production of documents in vernacular language, C. To pass such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is a tenant conducting business in the name and style “Zain Shoes” in a building owned by the 3rd respondent on the strength of Ext.P1 lease deed, which is valid upon to 14.05.2028 is the submission. The petitioner obtained Ext.P2 trade licence from the 1st respondent – Municipality and has been lawfully conducting business since 2020, it is the further submission. The licence was renewed upto 31.03.2023. Thereafter, there was a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for non-payment of rent. The 3rd respondent refused to give consent for renewal. Hence, the petitioner is not able to renew the licence is the grievance. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 4. There is no dispute regarding the fact the petitioner is the tenant of the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that a Commercial Suit is filed for eviction and recovery of rent arrears, damages etc. Whatever that may be, in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (3) KHC 803], the Municipality is bound to consider a renewal application, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting consent from the land owner. The 3rd respondent is free to proceed with the Suit and the renewal of the licence will not get any advantage to the petitioner in the Suit or in any other proceedings. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The petitioner is free to submit an application for renewal of the licence before the 1st respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2) If such an application is filed, the 1st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of such application, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting the consent from the 3rd respondent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.