JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent Municipality to stop the bakery business being run by the 3rd respondent in the building owned by the petitioner on the allegation that the 3rd respondent has been running the bakery business in the building without obtaining the required licence from the 2nd respondent Muncipality.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. No representation for the 2nd respondent despite serving notice on them.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

3rd respondent is occupying the building and running the bakery business causing nuisance and pollution. He does not possess the required licence also for running that business. In such a circumstance, the learned counsel submits, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

4. The 3rd respondent has filed a written statement refuting the contentions raised by the writ petitioner and also producing documents substantiating his case. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the building had been taken on ren