Pavureth Trust vs The Corporation Of Kochi on 19 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29394 of 2009(T)


1. PAVURETH TRUST, P.O. BOX NO. 1076
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE HEALTH OFFICER

3. THE SECRETARY

4. A.SITARAMAN, RAM NIVAS, K.PADMANABHAN

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DALE P.KURIEN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :19/10/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.29394 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a trust created by a parent with the child

or children as beneficiaries and appointing the grandfather as

the trustee. The trust holds title to a building in Cochin city.

That is given to the 4th respondent for a commercial activity. It is

pleaded by the petitioner that the said entrustment is only a

licence and not a lease. May be so; may not be so. The

Municipality Act, as interpreted by this Court, is not to be used

in lieu of proceedings for eviction in accordance with law. I say

this because once a person comes into occupation by the

legitimate process of a lease or licence, continued requirement

of the consent of the lessor or the licensor is not to be insisted

upon for renewal of the municipal licence, including licence

under D & O Rules, PFA Rules etc. Otherwise, the owners,

including landlords, could easily push all occupants, who are

licensees or lessees, under the cover of objecting to the renewal

WPC.29394/09

Page numbers

of municipal licence. Under such circumstances, I am not

inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner, who seeks

issuance of an order, declaring that the licence granted to the 4th

respondent is non est in law or even to issue a mandamus to the

first respondent municipal authority to recall the said licence to

run a restaurant. The writ petition fails. The same is

accordingly dismissed.

After having dictated this judgment, learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. I am

not inclined to grant such leave. That request is rejected.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.20/10.