Allowed

Jeevaraj, v. Alappuzha Municipality

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/12294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought renewal of municipality license for a shop he claimed as a legal heir. Due to an unresolved dispute with his sister, the previous licensing objection stood. The court directed the municipality to renew the license to the petitioner within three weeks, holding that internal disputes are for civil courts, absent a landlord objection.

What did the court decide?

Municipality directed to renew the petitioner's license application within three weeks of receipt of this judgment.

Jeevaraj, Vs Alappuzha Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.12294 OF 2019(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JEEVARAJ, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. LATE SAROJA SANKAR, SANKARA VILASOM, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 001

¶12

3 SREELAKSHMI, (CORRECTED) W/O. LATE GONDINDAN NAIR, MARTHANDOM PARAMBU HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADI MURI, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 009. CORRECTED ADDRESS OF R3. S.SREELEKHA, MARTHANDAM PARAMBU HOUSE, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688009. (CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-08-2019 IN I.A. 1/2019).

¶13

4 LATHA KRISHNAN, W/O. K.N KRISHNAN, DO23, DAFFODILS, VYKKALA APARTMENT, MARSUR P.O, BANGALORE 562 106

¶14

BY SRI.AZAD BABU, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.12294 OF 2019(J)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 21st day of December 2020

¶20

The petitioner's father was a tenant under the 3^rd respondent.

¶21

Father was conducting a textile shop. The petitioner claims that the lease hold right was bequeathed to him. There appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and 4^th respondent, who is his own sister. Though, notice was attempted to serve on her, it could not be completed. The petitioner applied for renewal of licence. That was not entertained by the Municipality on account of objection by the 4^th respondent.

¶22

Any dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent

¶23

will have to be worked out before the civil court. As the petitioner is being one of the legal heirs of his father, in the absence of any order passed by the competent civil court, the Municipality has to renew the application, unless, there is any objection on the side of the landlord. If the Municipality is satisfied that the petitioner is in occupation of the building in question, the Municipality shall consider the request for the renewal, even without insisting production of consent from the

¶24

WP(C).No.12294 OF 2019(J)

¶25

¶26

landlord. Though, notice was served on the landlord, none appears for

¶27

him. Needful shall be done by the Municipality within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

SAS/21/12/2020

¶33

WP(C).No.12294 OF 2019(J)

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE 12-12-1997	REGISTERED WILL DATED
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTED BY THE 4T	RECEIPT DATED 27-07-2006 H RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHE	DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE R.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE 11-01-2019	MO ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE 12-02-2019	MO ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE 13-03-2019.	MO ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE 13-04-2014	MO ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE FILED IN RCA NO. 2 APPELLATE AUTHORIT	COMPROMISE PETITION 9/2008 OF RENT CONTROL Y, ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE 29/2008 OF RENT CO AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZ	ORDER DATED IN RCA NO. NTROL APPELLATE HA
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE BY REGISTERED POST	LETTER DATED 17-12-2018 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE 2019 SUBMITTED UND	APPLICATION DATED 27-02- ER THE RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED TO THE PETI	REPLY DATED 26-03-2019 TIONER
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST	OFFICE NOTE KEPT IN THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE 2018 ISSUED BY THE	OBJECTION DATED 15-02- 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-	NIL	//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Jeevaraj, v. Alappuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevaraj, v. Alappuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikumar.M Vs Kozhikkode Muncipal Corporation

Sudheer.C Vs the Panchayat Secretary

Haneefa Vs the Municipal Secretary

Sreedharan U.P Vs the Thripprangottor Grama Panchayat

Ashik a. Shukoor, Vs the Adoor Municipality

Bindu Jose Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam