RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents 1 to 3 to issue them trade license on the ground that they have not produced the consent from the landlord, have filed the writ petition.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner. They are engaged in textile and other related businesses and they are conducting the business in the land and shed owned by the 4th respondent. Exhibits P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P3 and P3(a) are copies of the licence agreements entered into between the 2nd petitioner and the 4th respondent during various periods. Initially, the business was carried on under the name and style "New Maharaja Dress World ". Later, it was changed as "Avani Textiles " for a short period and it is submitted that the business is now carried on under the name "Pulimoottil Textiles ". It would appear that there were arrears of rent which resulted in the execution of Ext.P5 agreement. Petitioners submit that they have made improvements worth Rs.1,30,00,000.00 and that textile stocks worth Rs.2,20,00,000.00 are available. It is also stated that the petitioners had helped the 4th respondent to evict one of their tenants by paying him a sum of Rs.6 lakhs. It is stated that for the purpose of GST registration, the parties had executed Ext.P6 agreement and that the petitioners have obtained GST registration as per Ext.P7, in the name of Pulimoottil Textiles. The petitioners have also obtained registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, which has been produced as Ext.P8. According to the petitioners, after the execution of Exts.P5 and P6, the respondents 4 and 5 have asked them to vacate the premises, as they have a prospective purchaser for the property, which the petitioners did not agree to since they had made large investments and had converted the shed into a building where the business was to be inaugurated on 9.8.2021. It is stated that on the day fixed for inauguration, the respondents 4 and 5 had filed a complaint before the Cantonment Police Station against the petitioners alleging that Ext.P6 agreement was forged, which resulted in the Hon'ble Mayor who was to inaugurate the business backing off. The petitioners state that they had started the business on 11.8.2021 and on 12.8.2021, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P9 communication asking the 1st petitioner to remove all the goods stored in the property and building with immediate effect. Another communication Ext.P10 was issued on the same date to the employees of the petitioners pointing out that Pulimoottil Textiles was functioning without the consent and knowledge of the 4th respondent and on forged documents. The petitioners have produced Ext.P11 communication dated 30.6.2021 in which the 4th respondent had agreed to reimburse the cost of renovation and maintenance incurred by the petitioners. Ext.P12 is stated to be the reply sent to Ext.P11 communication informing that a sum of Rs.98,10,500.00 had been expended by the petitioners for renovation. It is the petitioners' case that till 30.6.2021, there was no dispute between the petitioners and the 4th and 5th respondents.

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed O.S.No.421 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam, against the 2nd respondent, for recovery of the possession of the building and for ancillary reliefs. Ext.P13 is the plaint in the suit. Ext.P14 is the FIR in Crime No.1058 of 1991 of Cantonment Police Station registered against the 2nd petitioner on the basis of the complaint of the 5th respondent. It is stated that the 4th respondent had submitted the cheque for Rs.10 lakhs issued by the 2nd petitioner as security deposit, for encashment. On 24/08/2021, the 3rd respondent Corporation issued notice to the 1st petitioner stating that the establishment was being run without obtaining necessary licence from the Corporation. On 26/08/2021, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of trade licence. The same is stated to have been not accepted, for want of consent from the landlord. On 9.9.2021, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P16 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking to issue trade licence. The receipt for payment of property tax had also been annexed with the representation. On 15.9.2021, the Health Supervisor attached to the office of the 3rd respondent also issued a notice to the 2nd petitioner intimating him that the business is being conducted without the required licence. The petitioners submit that the licence is in force till 16.4.2022 and going by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Anr. reported in [2016 (3) KHC 803], the licence cannot be denied to the tenant merely for the want of consent from the landlord, since a valid tenancy itself has the implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.