MUHAMMED YOUSUF SAIT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner owns a commercial building which comprises 21 shop rooms, within the limits of the second respondent Municipality. The second petitioner entered into a lease arrangement with the first petitioner in respect of 7 out of the said 21 shop rooms. However, when the second petitioner requested for licence to the second respondent Municipality to run a business in the leased premises, the third respondent informed her, in terms of Ext.P10 communication, that licence cannot be granted unless the property tax arrears in respect of the building are cleared by the petitioners. Ext.P10 communication is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Municipality.

(3.) The stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petition is that there is a dispute between the first petitioner and the Municipality concerning the property tax payable in respect of the building and the same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. According to the petitioners, the Municipality, in the circumstances, is not justified in insisting payment of the disputed property tax for granting licence in respect of the premises.