JAMEELA BEEVI Vs. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be a statutory tenant of a building bearing No.TC 39/386(1) in Thiruvananthapuram, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P3 and P4 orders of the Corporation and P5 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which have all found against her to the extent that she is not entitled to a licence to run a business in the said building, without the consent of its landlord.

(2.) The petitioner's specific case is that though she is a statutory tenant, the landlord is refusing to grant her consent solely to prejudice and harass her; and that, therefore, going by the ratio in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and another [2016 (3) KLT 247], the Secretary of the said Authority was bound to grant her licence. She thus prays that the impugned orders be set aside and the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram be directed to issue her a proper licence.

(3.) Sri.M.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Manoj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, refuted the afore contentions of the petitioner by saying that, going by Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, licence can be given to a person to commence a business only if his/her application is supported by the consent of the landlord. He submitted that the provision is absolutely clear on this issue and that it has been so declared by this Court in several judgments in the past. The learned senior counsel refers specifically to Babu v. Vijayan [2019 (1) KLT 684] and Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662] in substantiation of his assertion.