Unknown vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 9932 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7344 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER

               S.ANTONY, AGED 54 YEARS
               S/O SUSA, RESIDING AT SOUTHERN WEST PORTION OF
               T.C. 39/45, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               DISTRICT-695009.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.KIRANLAL
               SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
               SRI.T.S.SARATH
               SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
               SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      2        THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695033.

      3        P. YESUDAS, AGED 59 YEARS
               S/O PONNAN, T.C.39/2241, VRINDHAVAN LANE, BEHIND
               PADMANABHA THEATRE, MANACAUD VILLAGE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
               R1-2 BY SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7344 OF 2021(P)

                                   2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of March 2021

The petitioner is the proprietor of the business

'Royal Leathers'. The shop had been functioning since the

year 1999 with due licence from the 1st respondent

Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-

consideration of his application for renewal of licence on

insisting for production of the consent of the landlord.

2. Law is settled that, for renewal of licence,

consent of the landlord is not necessary (see Shalif

Muhammed Nahas v. Kochi Municipal Corporation & Others

(2019(3) KLT 721).

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd

respondent to consider the renewal application (Ext P7)

without insisting for consent from the 3rd respondent-

landlord. Orders shall be passed within a period of one

week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE vdv WP(C).No.7344 OF 2021(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.11.99.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.04.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 11(3)(4)(iii) AND (4)(V) OF THE KERALA BUILDING LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 06.10.2020 IN R.C.P.NO.42/2019.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3]R1 TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.