Celine George vs Kozhikkode Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11397 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.9070 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONERS:

      1        CELINE GEORGE,AGED 60 YEARS
               D/O. N.M.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA, 28/1513,
               NELLIKODE DESOM, NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-
               673 016

      2        SREESHMA.S.,AGED 35 YEARS
               W/O. JIJEESH, EDAPARAMBATH HOUSE, NAYARKUZHY P.O.,
               POOLAKKODE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673 601

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.SANTHARAM.P
               SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
               SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM
               SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KOZHIKKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
               CALICUT BEACH, NEAR AKASHVANI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673
               032, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

      2        THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               CALICUT BEACH, NEAR AKASHVANI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673
               032

      3        FREDERICK CHRISTY FRANCIS,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.
               FRANCIS, DWANUM DEY, NELLIKODE AMSOM, NELLIKODE
               VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 016

               R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, KOZHIKODE
               MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9070 OF 2021(G)

                                    2


                         Sathish Ninan, J.
                  ==============================
                      W.P.(C) No.9070 of 2021
                    ==========================
               Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is conducting the business of

'helmet and accessories' in a building belonging to

the 3rd respondent, taken on lease. The business

commenced on the strength of a consent (Ext P2) issued

by the land lord in the year 2018. Since then, the

petitioner had been doing business in the rented

premises with due licence. The licence was being

renewed periodically. The petitioner is aggrieved by

the refusal on the part of the 2 nd respondent to renew

the licence for the year 2021-2022 for the reason that

the landlord has refused consent.

Law is trite that once a landlord has initially

granted consent, then further consent shall not be

insisted for renewal of licence.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext P6 WP(C).No.9070 OF 2021(G)

application seeking renewal of licence, without

insisting for consent from the landlord. Pending

consideration of the application, coercive steps shall

not be taken against the petitioner.

Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge

vdv WP(C).No.9070 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 08.05.2018 SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 08.05.2018 SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE FEE PAID TO 1ST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS DATED 28.02.2018

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE FEE PAID TO 1ST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS DATED 22.02.2019

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE FEE PAID TO 1ST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS DATED 22.03.2020

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS DATED 22.02.2021 TO 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.03.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS DIRECTING THEM TO STOP THEIR FUNCTIONING