Allowed

Shabnam A.S v. Nedumangad Municipality

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/22509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, successors to a shop lease, approached the Kerala High Court via writ petition seeking direction to the respondent Municipality. They alleged rejection of their licence application due to insistence on the former licensee's surrender formalities. The Court granted relief directing the Municipality to consider the application without demanding further documents from the original licens

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the second petitioner for licence in respect of the premises referred to in the writ petition in accordance with law, without in

Shabnam A.S Vs Nedumangad Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22509 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SHABNAM A.S., AGED 30 YEARS, D/O ABDUL SALAM, SHIBI NIVAS, VETTUVILA, PATHAMKALLU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶8

2 AL ASWAD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KADHER, ESSEL HOUSE, MANCHA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶12

Writ Petition (C) No.22509 of 2020

¶13

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶15

3 SANDEEP H.N, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O HARIKESHAN NAIR, “UPAHAR”, NEAR ARUVIKKARA FARMERS SOCIETY, ARUVIKKARA P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564

¶16

4 SOUMYA B.S., W/O SANDEEP H.N, “UPAHAR”, NEAR ARUVIKKARA FARMERS SOCIETY,

¶17

ARUVIKKARA P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564

¶18

R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH BY SRI.RAMDAS, STANDING COUNSEL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.22509 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

Writ Petition (C) No.22509 of 2020

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The first petitioner owns a shop room within the limits of Nedumangad Municipality. The first petitioner leased out the said shop room to the third respondent. On the strength of the lease deed executed by the first petitioner, the third respondent has obtained licence to run a business in the shop room. It is stated by the petitioners that the third respondent has surrendered the shop room during February, 2020 and thereafter, the first petitioner has leased out the same to the second petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioners that the second respondent is not considering the application for licence applied for by the second petitioner taking the stand that the third respondent has to apply for cancellation of the licence issued to him, for the second respondent to consider the application preferred by the second petitioner. Ext.P5 is the communication issued in this regard by the second respondent to the first petitioner. The case of the petitioners is that insofar as the third respondent has surrendered the building to the first petitioner, the second respondent is bound to consider the application submitted by the second petitioner after conducting a

¶25

WP(C).No.22509 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

physical verification. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel for the third respondent, on instructions, submits that the third respondent has surrendered the shop room referred to in the writ petition to the first petitioner during February, 2020 itself.

¶30

If the third respondent has surrendered the shop room to the first petitioner as admitted by the third respondent, there cannot be any impediment at all for the second respondent in considering the application for licence submitted by the second petitioner.

¶31

In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the second petitioner for licence in respect of the premises referred to in the writ petition in accordance with law, without insisting any document from the third respondent. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ds 13.01.2021

¶35

WP(C).No.22509 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 7.9.2020 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DATED 16.6.2019 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.9.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.9.2020 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Shabnam A.S v. Nedumangad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabnam A.S v. Nedumangad 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

Bahisa T. Vs the Peruvayal Grama Panchayath

Anwar Sadath.P Vs Shamsudeen.v.J

Karthika Salinkumar Vs the Secretary

Thomas v.v, Vs Madhu S.Nair

Satheeshkumar Vs Radhamani Amma

Shajan P.X. Vs Rani P Eldo