Amrithagouri vs Thrissur Muncipal Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 6057 Ker

               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

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

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

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

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

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