On the above legal issue, we may benefit by referring to the pronouncement in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum reported in [(2016) 14 SCC 263] where the Supreme Court on the issue of the renewal of a trade licence, stated that a tenant cannot be deprived of running a lawful business merely because the landlord withheld his consent, and further that, a valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.
9. In the above case itself, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the ratio laid down by this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662] where the following was recorded:—
“…………………………………………………………………………………………
16. A statutory tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can be evicted only as per the provisions of the said Act, on the grounds enumerated therein. Since the possession of the tenant is lawful, the landlord is not entitled to withhold his consent for the conduct of the business for which the premises were given on rent. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the landlord is purposefully and with malafide intention withholding consent inspite of the directions from this court. Under such circumstances, the Corporation also cannot insist upon production of written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuance of licence for the conduct of business in the premises in question. For carrying on business in readymade dresses a licence issued under Sec.492 of the Kerala Municipality Act is necessary. As on date, the petitioner is not having any licence to carry on such business. A person in occupation can be allowed to carry on a trade or business which requires a licence, only after obtaining such licence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as above, we direct the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to consider Ext.P7 application for licence without insisting upon the production of a written consent of the owner of the premises and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioners or their representative or their advocate, within two weeks from today. The petitioners are at liberty to file any further documents, if need be, before the Corporation authorities. The Corporation shall pass a reasoned order after hearing the necessary parties and communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from today. We make it clear that till such time the petitioners shall not conduct the textile business in the premises in question. Ext.P8 order of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram is set aside and Ext.P7 is restored to file for fresh consideration as directed above.”
………………………………………………………………………………………….”
10. In the facts of the present case what would have a bearing is that in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the necessity for dispensing with the requirement of providing consent from the landlord for considering the renewal of the trade licence in a situation where the relationship between the landlord and tenant are strained, was held to be applicable both in a situation where fresh application is applied or it is a case of renewal of a trade licence that is applied by the tenant. Therefore the direction to this effect issued in the impugned verdict would merit our approval.
In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
(Before Hrishikesh Roy, C.J. and A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.)
W.A. No. 2426 of 2018
C.S. Babu v. C. Vijayan @ Raghavan,
Decided on December 14, 2018
Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5783
