MUHAMMED SHIHAB Vs. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY PATHAIKKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are running a footwear business in Shop Room No.5/498 (Old Shop Room No.4/670) of the Perinthalmanna Municipality, seek to set aside Ext.P7 communication of the Secretary to the Municipality and to direct the 2nd respondent-Secretary to consider Ext.P1 and issue D&O licence to the petitioners without insisting for fresh consent of all the landlords as they are in occupation of the tenanted premises from 2016.

(2.) The petitioners state that on 2/6/2016, the 6th respondent, who is one of the landlords, had executed a lease deed for 11 months in favour of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners have been conducting business ever since 2016. The shop had a licence at that time, which was in the name of the 6th respondent. There is a stock of approximately ?50 lakhs inside the shop. The rent agreement was extended from time to time. In fact, the party respondents had informed the petitioners that they had authorised one among them for executing the agreement with the petitioners.

(3.) When the petitioners applied for D&O licence on 15/12/2022 along with the Consent issued by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent refused to consider the application stating that the signature of all landlords is necessary in the Consent.