O THAJUDHEEN Vs. IVY ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the status of the first respondent, in the building belonging to the petitioner, is only that of a trespasser. No tenancy agreement, much less any lease agreement has been executed between the petitioner and the first respondent.But, it is conceded that the first respondent, in anticipation of a lease agreement, has been permitted to do painting works.

(2.) Now, it is alleged that on the strength of the permission given by the petitioner to the first respondent to doing painting work of the building, the first respondent has applied for a licence to the second respondent and the grievance is that the 2ndrespondent Municipality is about to issue licence to the first respondent.

(3.) Ido not propose to go into themerits of the case. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation to the Municipality requesting that licence may not be issued to the first respondent, since it is seen that the first respondent has applied for a licence.Shri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, who is appearing for the second respondent, submits that the question issuanceoflicencetothefirst respondentwill be decided only after hearing the petitioner also. Under these circumstances, the writ petition will standdisposed ofdirecting the 2ndrespondent Municipality to take a decision on the application for licence submitted by the first respondent, only after hearing the petitioner on Ext.P1 application submitted by him. The decision on the application for licence, as directed above, will be taken at the earliest, at any rate within one month from today.