T.G. Padmanabhan vs Thiruvambadygrama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 14802 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

               T.G. PADMANABHAN
               AGED 55 YEARS
               S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, NELLULICHALIL HOUSE,
               THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.SANTHARAM.P
               SMT.REKHA ARAVIND



RESPONDENTS:

    1          THIRUVAMBADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               PIN - 673 603.

    2          NITHIN JOY
               S/O.T.P.JOY, THOMARAKKATTIL,
               THIRUVAMBADY AMSOM DESOM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
               KOZHIKODE.

    3          NIMIN JOY
               S/O.T.P.JOY, THOMARAKKATTIL,
               THIRUVAMBADY AMSOM DESOM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
               KOZHIKODE.

               BY ADV SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA




        THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   15.07.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013
                                       -2-




                                 JUDGMENT

According to the petitioner, petitioner is

conducting a medical shop in room No.3/1028 of

Thiruvambadi Grama Panchayath, Kozhikode

District, which is at present owned by respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

2. Case of the petitioner is that, the

building was taken on lease by the petitioner

from the erstwhile owner of the building one Babu

Thomarakkattil and has been in possession from

30.04.1993. The issue raised by the petitioner in

the writ petition is on the basis of Ext.P4 order

passed by the Secretary of the Thiruvambady Grama

Panchayath - the 1st respondent directing the

petitioner to produce consent of the owner of the

building in order to issue the trade licence.

According to the petitioner, the Secretary of the WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013

Grama Panchayath is not vested with any powers to

require the petitioner to submit consent of the

owner in order to renew the trade licence.

3. The contention put forth is that when

the petitioner was put in possession from the

erstwhile owner, and he was continuing in

possession of the building after securing trade

licence from the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayath, is entitled to get protection of the

provisions of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1965. It is also pointed out that,

the owner of the building namely, the 3rd

respondent has filed a rent control petition

R.C.P.No.25/2012 before the Munsiff Court,

Kozhikode, claiming bonafide need of the landlord

to occupy the shop room, apparently the rent

control proceedings was pending. Now the sole

question emerges for consideration in this writ

petition is whether the insistence made by the WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013

Secretary of the Grama Panchayath as per Ext.P4

order requiring the petitioner to produce the

consent letter from the landlord to renew the

trade licence is legal and proper.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner Sri.Santharam.P and the learned

counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayath

Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha and perused the

pleadings and materials on record. Eventhough

notice is served on respondent Nos. 2 and 3,

there is no appearance.

5. The question with respect to the

insistence made by the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayath for consent letter from the landlord

to renew the trade licence was considered by this

Court in a large number of decision and held that

eventhough there is no provision existing in the

Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 in respect of the

consent letter from the landloard, it was held WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013

that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath would

not be justified to insist for consent letter for

renewal of the trade licence, since the tenant

was put in possession originally after securing

the consent letter from the landlord.

6. In my considered opinion as in this case

if and when a dispute arise by and between the

tenant and the landlord and rent control

proceedings are pending, the landlord would not

be inclined or interested in issuing any

consent letter. But at the same time it is

significant to note that the tenant is entitled

to get protection under the provisions of the

Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

1965, until evicted from the premises in

accordance with law.

7. Viewed in that manner and bearing in

mind the principles of law laid down by this

Court with regard to the building situated in WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013

municipal areas and the fact that the landlord,

tenant relationship is protected under Act,

1965, I do not think Ext.P4 order passed by the

Secretary directing the petitioner to produce the

consent letter can be legally sustained.

Accordingly, I quash the same and there will be a

direction to the Secretary to issue licence if

and when application is filed by the petitioner,

subject to the final outcome of eviction

proceedings by the rent control court and the

execution court.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 10327 OF 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10327/2013

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXHIBIT P1 . TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02.01.2009.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 27.03.2013.

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.P.

25/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P.

PETITIONER ANNEXURE             NIL