PANEERSELVEN Vs. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The basic challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P3 order passed by the Health Supervisor of the Palakkad Muncipality dated 11.03.2015, whereby, on an application filed by the petitioner, he was informed that the name of the petitioner's father is removed from the D&O list. Therefore, if at all the petitioner wants to continue in the premises by securing a license, petitioner will have to secure a fresh consent from the landlord, enabling the Muncipality to consider the same. The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Petitioner is running an Ice Factory in a premises taken on rent from the 2nd respondent. The shop room was originally taken on rent by the petitioner's father P.M.S Mahalingam in the year 1972 from Venkatachalam Pillai for the purpose of running an ice factory. Among other licenses for running the shop, Sri. Mahalingam also obtained the license contemplated as per Sec. 447 of the Kerala Muncipality Act, 1994. According to the petitioner, the licence was renewed in favour of Sri. Mahalingam from time to time. During the course of time the original landlord as well as the tenant passed away and the petitioner is running the Ice Factory in the tenanted premises. Now the 2nd respondent claims to be the grand-daughter of the original landlord has filed a Rent Control Petition No.53/2013 in the court of the Additional Munsiff (Rent Control) Palakkad, to evict the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. while so, on 25.02.2015, petitioner has submitted an application before the 1st respondent informing that, since his father was no more, the trade license needs to be issued in his name. By its letter dated 11.03.2015, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the consent of the landlord is a precondition for issuing the license. The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the estranged relationship between the petitioner and the landlord, he is not in a position to obtain consent from the landlord. Some of the contentions putforth by the petitioner are that Ext.P3 communication of the authorized officer of the Palakkad Muncipality cannot be sustained under law, since petitioner is the legal heir of the original tenant who is entitled to continue in the premises by virtue of the protection granted as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.