Kerala High Court
M.G.Meethu vs The Corporation Of Trivandrum on 16 January, 2013
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/15TH PHALGUNA 1934
WA.No. 356 of 2013 (E) IN WP(C).9843/2011
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).9843/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 16-01-2013
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
M.G.MEETHU
AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.K.T.GEETHA, KAMALA MANDIRAM
TC-9/76, SSK LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR
KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
2. SUDHAKARAN
KADAMBATTU HOUSE, THEKKEUM BHAGOM, KAZHAKUTTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.
3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
R1 BY SR.ADV.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON
BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
R2 BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 356 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2013
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Trivandrum Corporation and the party respondent.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner herein is the landlord of the premises in which the party respondent is carrying on hardware and dry cleaning business. The licence to do the said trade has to be given by the Corporation. Initially, licence to carry on the trade was issued by the Grama Panchayat concerned and later on the said Grama Panchayat was included in the Corporation limits, therefore, the Local Self Government Institution would be the Trivandrum Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the licence issued to carry on the trade way back in 2001 came to be renewed from time to time and the last licence expired on 31.3.2008. Subsequently, what the tenant did so far as the trade licence is very relevant. He did not seek renewal of the licence till 25.5.2009, only addressed a letter to the President of WA.356/13 2 the Panchayat. When the President of the Panchayat rejected consideration of the same, he took up the matter before the higher authorities as the Statute provides. However, later on when the Panchayat came to be included in the Corporation limits, the application had to be dealt with by the Council of the Corporation which came to be rejected for want of consent of the landlord. This came to be challenged by the tenant before the authorities as contemplated in the Statute. Ultimately, the landlord had to approach the learned Single Judge challenging Exhibit P5 order. The learned Single Judge held that there was no necessity of obtaining consent from the landlord, as the tenant is carrying on the business since 2001 and neither is he a fresh tenant nor is he doing business afresh. The learned Single Judge opined that there was no need to obtain consent of the landlord, as earlier such consent was obtained, therefore, there was no need to obtain the same for renewal of the licence. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.
3. According to learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon appearing for the first respondent Corporation, once the licence comes to an end by 31.3.2008, the question of renewing the said licence would not arise in the absence of the tenant WA.356/13 3 applying for renewal of the trade licence within 30 days as contemplated under Section 492 of the Kerala Municipalities Act.
4. Validity of the earlier licence undisputedly was till 31.3.2008. Later, renewal was sought only on 25.5.2009, that too to the President of the Panchayat. This cannot be treated as a proper application for renewal. Subsequently, on 10.8.2010 he filed a fresh application for licence, therefore, neither letter dated 25.5.2009 nor application dated 10.8.2010 was a proper application for renewal of the earlier licence as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. If the earlier licence comes to an end on 31.3.2008, in the absence of making a renewal application within 30 days before expiry of validity of the existing licence, the tenant cannot get the benefit of renewal of licence and it has to be only a fresh licence. Once it is a fresh licence, permission or consent of the landlord is required as indicated in sub-section (3) of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipalities Act.
In that view of the matter, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge were not justified in disallowing the claim of the writ petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge by quashing WA.356/13 4 Exhibit P5. The decision of the Council of Trivandrum Corporation that consent of the landlord is necessary is upheld. It is pertinent to mention that though the tenant cannot carry on trade in the shop in question belonging to the appellant, he cannot be evicted on account of this reason. The eviction of the tenant has to be in accordance with the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE vgs6.3