Dismissed

Vijayadasan Nair v. P.O.Davis

Kerala HC4 Jul 2017WA/1240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the High Court below's order renewing a tenant's municipal licence after the lease expired. The Supreme Court held the licensee can seek renewal despite lease expiry and found no prejudice from not hearing the landlord, as his ground lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; licence renewal order by the High Court below affirmed without merit to the appeal.

Vijayadasan Nair Vs P.O.Davis — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WA. No.1240 of 2017 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 11917/2017 DATED 05-04-2017.)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

VIJAYADASAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, THOYIKKATHOTTATHIL, KADAPPATTUR KARA, MEENCHAIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 574.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶11

P. O. DAVIS, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE OUSEPH, PANIKULAM HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM, PULIYANNUR VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686 574.

¶12

PALA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI. V. M. KURIAN R1 BY ADV. SRI. TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA)

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶16

- - - - W.A. No.1240 of 2017

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2017

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶20

Having heard the parties at length, with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶21

The appellant is the landlord, who had leased out his property to the first respondent, the writ petitioner. As a lessee, the first respondent had a licence granted by the respondent Municipality to run a restaurant. The lease expired. The municipal licence was due for renewal. At this stage, the appellant, who was the second respondent in the writ proceedings, filed objection before the Municipality objecting to the grant of licence to the lessee, who had now become a statutory tenant or a tenant by sufferance. The Municipality, instead of renewing the licence, as was done in the past, entertained the objection of the landlord and issued notice to both the parties on the objection so raised. It is against this, the tenant has filed the writ petition which was allowed

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

WA.1240/17

¶24

by the impugned judgment and being aggrieved, the landlord is in appeal before us.

¶25

On behalf of the landlord, it is submitted that once the lease had expired, the lessee ceased to be a lawful tenant and relinquishes his right to continue in occupation. Accordingly, even though he had a licence from the Municipality, he cannot continue on that licence after its expiry and seek for its renewal. For the said proposition, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [AIR 2016 SC 3180]. We have gone through the said decision and to us, it appears that the decision is squarely against the proposition as canvassed by the learned counsel for the landlord. The said decision affirms the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Marimuthu and Others v. D.G.P. and Others [1999 (3) KLT 662] wherein, it was expressly held, while dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, that notwithstanding expiry of the lease, a lessee cannot be prevented from getting his municipal licence renewed.

¶26

To us, it seems that the whole game played by the landlord was only to do indirectly which he could not achieve directly. That

¶27

WA.1240/17

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

is, the tenant's eviction. In this State, expiry of the lease is not a ground available to the landlord to evict or to seek tenant's eviction. On expiry of the lease, he continues as a statutory tenant, till he is evicted in accordance with law. Very few grounds are available for eviction. Aware of this situation, what the landlord has done is oppose the renewal of the very lifeline of the tenant i.e. his business. Consequence would be that, if the business is not permitted, the tenant would leave the premises. But, it is well settled law that, what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly. Thus, the plea of the appellant that once the lease expired the Municipality was not bound to renew the licence, cannot be accepted.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that before the learned single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, the landlord was required to be heard. He points out that the learned single Judge did not give any notice to the landlord before allowing the writ petition. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel is correct that the appellant was required to be heard. We are conscious of the fact and the position in law that where a party required to be heard is not heard, the

¶31

WA.1240/17

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

order would be in violation of principles of natural justice and thus, void. But, we are also conscious of the position that natural justice is not an unruly horse or a bull in the China shop.

¶34

We repeatedly asked the appellant as to why he wanted to be heard. His only reply was, so that he could oppose the grant of renewal of licence of the writ petitioner on the ground as noted above. To us, it is clear that the ground, as being canvassed, has no legs to stand on. That being the only ground, we do not think, any prejudice has been caused by this procedural impropriety.

¶35

We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is

¶36

accordingly dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶39

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶40

krj.5/7

Vijayadasan Nair v. P.O.Davis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayadasan Nair v. P.O.Davis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varsha Velayudhan Vs the Deputy Secretary (Exam)

State of Kerala Vs Sreejith.S

P.Jayaram Parameswaran Vs P.Ajikumar

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs T.v.Kunhikannan

Aji Mathew Vs Teh Federal Bank Ltd.

Aluva Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala