IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22917 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
AMRITHAGOURI,
AGED 68 YEARS,
W/O SUKUMARAN P.K.,
PALLOOR HOUSE,
NETTISSERY P.O.,
NELLANKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING,
M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 680001.
2 THE SECRETARY,
THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING,
M.O. ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.
BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.22917/2018
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who was conducting a business of dry fish in a Municipal Stall in Sakthan Thamburan Municipal Non-Vegetarian Market in Thrissur, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to transfer the tenancy right of the Shop Room No.99 of Sakthan Thamburan Non-Vegetarian Market, Thrissur, in the name of the petitioner and allow her to remit the rent, by issue of a writ of Mandamus.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner's husband has been conducting business of dry fish in Shop Room No. 99 at Sakthan Thamburan Muncipal Non-Vegetarian Market. The petitioner's husband has been possessing the WP(C)No.22917/2018 3 shop, since the establishment of the market. The petitioner's husband executed a rent deed with the respondent-Corporation and remitted the rent as enhanced by the respondents, from time to time.
3. The petitioner's husband passed away on 04.10.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner has been running the shop. The petitioner states that the respondents forcibly closed down the shop in the year 2018 and therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to transfer the tenancy right of the shop in the name of the petitioner.
4. The Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contested the writ petition and controverted all the material allegations levelled by the petitioner. A counter affidavit has also been filed in defence. The respondents submitted that Room No.99 in the market was given to Sri.P.K.Sukumaran on the basis of an agreement. It was WP(C)No.22917/2018 4 noticed that the said room has been locked down for several days. Licence in respect of the room was not renewed. Later, the respondents learnt that the original licensee died on 04.10.1991. The demise of Sri.P.K.Sukumaran came to the notice of the Corporation much later. As there is no subsequent agreement in respect of the shop room, the respondents were justified in closing the same.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The petitioner's husband has been running the shop in the market since the establishment of the market. The petitioner's husband passed away on 04.10.1991. According to the petitioner, she is in possession of the shop room thereafter and has been doing the business. WP(C)No.22917/2018 5
7. The case of the respondents is that after the demise of the lessee, the agreement was not renewed. No person, neither the petitioner nor any of the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.P.K.Sukumaran, approached the Corporation for entering into agreement. In the circumstances, the Corporation had no other go than to close the shop. The respondents have not committed any illegality or arbitrariness in their action.
8. The fact remains that the petitioner's husband has been running the shop for a considerably long period and after his demise on 04.10.1991, the petitioner was in possession of the shop. If the respondents deny possession of the building to the petitioner on the basis of the omission of the petitioner to approach the respondents in order to renew the agreement, this Court is of the view that it will be too harsh.
WP(C)No.22917/2018 6
9. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents fairly submitted that if the petitioner remits arrears of rent and all other pending dues, if any, the respondents have no objection in considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence/execution of agreement for renting out the shop.
In the facts as narrated above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the respondents for renewal/execution of agreement. If the petitioner clears all arrears of rent and other dues, if any, the respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C)No.22917/2018 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22917/2018 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(a) THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. SR