Showkathali v. Vatanappalli Grama Panchayath and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 13442 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHOWKATHALI, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.KURIKKAPEEDIKA UMMERKUTTY, BUSINESS, MUTTICHOOR, PADIYAM P.O., PIN-680 641, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 VATANAPPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VATANAPPALLI P.O., PIN-680 614, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.` - `2 HAJARA, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.PUTHIYAVEETTIL HAMSA, KACHERIPPADI, THALIKKULAM P.O., PIN-680 569, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `3 ADDL.R3. SIDDHIQUE, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.PUTHIYAVEETIL HAMSA, SAHRUDAYA NAGAR, GANESAMANGALAM BRANCH ROAD,VATANAPPALLI P.O.680614, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` ``` ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.07.2021 IN IA NO.1/2021 IN WPC 13442/2021. ``` - `4 ADDL.R4, SABITA D/O.PUTHIYAVEETTIL HAMSA, KACHERIPPADI, THALIKKULAM P.O, 680569 THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `5 ADDL.R5, SHAFI S/O.PUTHIYAVEETTIL HAMSA, KACHERIPPADI, THALIKKULAM P.O, 680 569, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` ``` ADDL R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED, AS PER ORDER DATED 24-09-2021 IN IA 3/2021 IN WP(C)13442/2021. BY ADVS. S.U.NAZAR P.B.KRISHNAN B.VINOD ``` **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** ``` K.V.SASIDHARAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE JOSEPH FREEMAN MANU VYASAN PETER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.13442 of 2021** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. Call for the records relating to Ext. P4 and quash the same with a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and quash Ext. P4. - ii. The costs of the petitioner. iii. Such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. **==> picture [35 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** 2. According to the petitioner, he is a tenant in a room owned by the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1[st] respondent issued licence to him for running a footwear shop for the period ending 31.3.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the allegation that the son of the 2[nd] respondent had disputed the arrangement between **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** the petitioner and 2[nd] respondent, the 1[st] respondent issued a notice to the petitioner seeking information for renewing the licence. It is further stated in the writ petition that without considering the truthful reply setting forth even precedents declared by this Court, the 1[st] respondent has communicated that the renewal cannot be granted, overlooking the right of deemed licence. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the 1[st] respondent. It is also stated in the writ petition that as long as the 2[nd] respondent is now said to be a co-owner, the rental arrangement between her and the petitioner is legally valid and cannot challenge the same before the 1[st] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that rent agreement produced is a fabricated one. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly a licence was issued to the petitioner by the 1[st] respondent Panchayat as evident by Ext.P1 on 31.12.2020, based on a rent agreement produced by the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for renewal for the financial year 2021-22, as evident by Ext.P2 receipt. Thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply to the Panchayat. Subsequently Ext.P4 order is passed by the Panchayat. The dispute regarding the rent agreement was raised first only at the time of renewal of the licence. If that is the case, this is a matter to be decided by the civil court. The Apex Court in **Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (14) SCC 263]** observed like this: “8. After due consideration of the issues involved, we find merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The statutory provision already quoted above shows that the requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time. Renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining licence. Even in the case of **6** ## **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. Valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.” 6. In the light of the above principle, I think Ext.P4 can be set aside leaving open all the contentions of the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent is free to agitate the contentions before the appropriate civil court. But, in the meanwhile the licence is to be renewed by the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext.P4 is set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the renewal application submitted by the petitioner, without insisting any consent from the 2[nd] respondent. 3. All the contentions of the 2[nd] respondent regarding the genuineness of the rent agreement and other legal contentions are left **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** open and is free to raise the same before the appropriate civil court or rent control court as the case may be, in accordance to law. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.13442/2021** **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13442/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.636/2020- 2021/A-4/6389/20 DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 27.03.2021 FOR PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 17.06.2021 BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A4-3006/21 DATED 25.06.2021 FROM 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 26.7.2021 FILED HAJARA AND 2 OTHERS IN OS 522/2021 IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, CHAVAKKAD RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A)COPY OF FIR NO.0498 OF 2021 OF THE VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION ```