M V SIVASANKARAN Vs. PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is conducting a hotel under the name and style 'Hotel Annapoorneswari', within the limits of 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. The building in which the business is conducted was owned by late Sri. Kumaran, father of respondents 2 to 5. The petitioner was holding licence issued by the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat with respect to the hotel business. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the licence issued having validity upto 31-03-2005. Exhibit P2 receipt indicates that he had remitted licence fee till the year 2010-2011. Exhibit P3 is the application for renewal of licence submitted with respect to year 2011-2012. The 1st respondent had not granted renewal because the respondents 2 to 5 have raised objection that they have not issued any consent/no objection. According to the petitioner the original landlord was his relative and now his children are in loggerheads with the petitioner. It is alleged that they wanted to evict the petitioner from the building through unlawful methods. When respondents 2 to 5 objected renewal of licence the petitioner obtained Ext.P4 lease agreement executed by the wife, son, and a relative of deceased Sri. Kumaran, as per Ext.P4. Even after production of Ext.P4, the licence was not renewed. Ext.P6 notice was issued by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat intimating the petitioner that, unless he obtains and produces no objection certificate from all the legal heirs of Sri.Kumaran within 15 days of receipt of such notice, the application for renewal will be rejected. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 mainly contending that he is a statutory tenant continuing in occupation of the premises and the insistence for no objection for the purpose of renewal of licence is unwarranted.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 it is contended that a suit is pending before the Sub Court, Ottapalam as OS No.60/2011, with respect to partition of the properties belonging to deceased Sri. Kumaran. It is further stated that application for appointment of a Receiver is pending disposal in the said suit. According to respondents 2 to 4 the writ petitioner is moving hand in glove to help some of the legal heirs. Inter alia the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the petitioner has got a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against Ext.P4.

(3.) HEARD Sri. Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. The 4th respondent appeared in person and raised vehement contentions. Her submissions are mainly related to the dispute which is existing between the legal heirs of deceased Sri.Kumaran and are mainly touching on the merits of the partition suit pending before the Sub Court. The 4th respondent had raised a contention that the writ petitioner is not a statutory tenant with respect to the building and that he is a trespasser in occupation of the building.