Kerala High Court
Maheen R vs Adoor Municipality on 4 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:49201
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.8991 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MAHEEN R.,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O RASHEED KOYA , CHIRAYATH VAYAL , KALLARAMTHODU ,
KOOTIKADAP.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691020
BY ADV SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 ADOOR MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE , PARASS LA, ADOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 691523
2 BADARUDEEN,
S/O MOIDEEN RAWTHER, GALAXY HOME, PERINGADU P.O, PERINGADU
VILLAGE, ADOOR, PIN - 691523
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI K SHAJ SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49201
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
The present intra court appeal is directed against the
judgment of the Single Bench whereby the following reliefs
claimed by the appellant-writ petitioner have been rejected.
Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent
to issue licence to the petitioner, in pursuance to
Ext.P3 application, without insisting on the payment of
arrears of rent.
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the
controversy in brief are enumerated herein below:
Petitioner-tenant had entered into a rent agreement
dated 1.7.2023, Ext.P1 with the second respondent-landlord and
his wife for conducting a mobile service and training center in the
shop bearing No.428 of Adoor Municipality at JB Mall. An amount
of Rs.15,00,000/- was invested for renovating the rented
premises. The consent was given on 1.9.2023 by the landlord,
Ext.P2 for enabling the petitioner-tenant to submit an application
under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipal Rules and
Regulations, 1994 for the purpose of obtaining trade licence from
the concerned Municipality.
3. Accordingly, an application Ext.P3 dated 13.9.2023
was submitted before the Municipality for issuance of the trade
2025:KER:49201
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
licence. The Municipality, on receipt of the application vide
communication dated 11.12.2023 informed the petitioner that the
owner of the building has given an application dated 18.10.2023
for not granting the licence to the building which necessitated the
petitioner to submit an application Ext.P5 stating that he has
given a deposit of Rs.2 lakh after the tenancy agreement and
apart from that, had also undertaken, renovation work at the cost
of Rs.15 lakh. But again was replied vide notice dated 22.2.2024,
Ext.P6 indicating that the petitioner-tenant acted contrary to the
lease agreement with the building owner as the owner had given
a statement that he had paid only Rs.17,500/- out of the monthly
rent of Rs.35,000/-.
4. The learned Single Bench noticing all these factors as
well as the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum
(2016(3) KHC 803) to the fact that the tenant cannot be deprived
of running a lawful business merely because the landlord has
withheld the consent, dismissed the writ petition on the premise
that the petitioner-appellant has not paid the arrears of rent to
the landlord.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that the terms and conditions of the rent agreement and consent
2025:KER:49201
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
letter was sufficient for the petitioner to obtain a trade licence
having spent a substantial amount of compensation. In case of any
default in the payment of money, respondent/landlord have
accepted the remedy to seek ejectment on previous grounds
including the arrears of rent. In fact as per the submission of
Mr.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
landlord, rent petition has been filed and eviction order has been
passed.
5. On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that appellant - petitioner is contemplating to file the
appeal. Be that as it may. The decision culled out in Sudhakaran
v. Corporation of Trivandrum and anr, 2016(3)KHC803 is
squarely applicable in the instant case for the reason that once
the landlord has given the consent, the provisions of section 492
of the Kerala Municipality Act,1994, leaves no manner of doubt
that the trade license has to be issued and the landlord cannot
withdraw the consent on the ground of arrears of rent for that he
has accepted the remedy which already has been availed. There
may be a situation where the tenant may clear the arrears of rent
but for that purpose, cannot be prevented from running the
business as it is the violation of Article 19 and 21 of the
2025:KER:49201
WA NO. 125 OF 2025
Constitution of India for, substantial amount for renovation as
well as security has already been spent and paid.
6. We have been informed that the respondent
Municipality has locked the premises. It appears that the landlord
and the Municipality are in hand and glove with each other by
adopting different means though the procedure prescribed in law
has been resorted to much later.
7. For the reason aforementioned, we are of the view that
the impugned judgment is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.
Writ petition is allowed. Respondent Municipality is directed to
issue trade licence to the petitioner subject to payment of actual
charges and in the meantime break open the locks of the
premises forthwith.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
SD/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
