VIJAYASREE EYE HOSPITAL Vs. THRISSUR CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is an eye hospital at Thrissur, which has been functioning from 1982 onwards under the name "Vijayasree Eye Hospital". The main challenge in this writ petition is against the rejection of the trade license, stating that the nature of occupancy of the building remains residential instead of commercial.

(2.) M/s. Vijayasree Eye Hospital is a registered partnership firm. The said name was changed to 'Vijayasree Eye Hospital (Post Graduate Institution for Training and Research)' with effect from 16/10/1990, as is seen from the extract of the Registrar of Firms. The firm had purchased a property in its name in the year 1982 and has been conducting the hospital in the said property till date. In the meantime, due to the death of the partners/Managing Partners, there was a reconstitution of the firm and later, by an agreement dtd. 31/8/2022, the hospital was leased to the second petitioner. There are presently three buildings which were reconstructed in 1991 and again in 2006. The buildings bear the numbers 37/1757, 37/1758 and 37/1759.

(3.) The assessment register maintained by the Corporation showed the name of the Managing Partner as the owner of the property instead of the partnership firm. In the meantime, the partnership was reconstituted twice due to the death of the partners. In 2022, the business of the partnership was leased out to the second petitioner to carry on the hospital in the same name as the first petitioner. When it was realised that the assessment register showed the name of the deceased partners as owners of the property, a request was made to change the said name in the assessment register and to incorporate the name of the firm as the owner. The Corporation demanded the production of the legal heirship certificate of the deceased partners and consent from all the other partners, apart from the affidavit of the legal heirs for effecting the change. While producing the required documents sought for by the Corporation, petitioners contended that those were not essential since the firm continues to remain the owner of the property. However, the Corporation failed to take a decision.