SUDHAKARAN versus CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 1043 · Decided: 05-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. I 043 
SUDHAKARAN 
v. 
CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5435 of2016) 
JULY05,2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Kera/a Municipality Act, 1994 - s.492(3) - Requirement of 
consent of landlord - For obtaining licence - Whether required 
only when the licence is obtained for the jirst time or also at the 
time of its renewal - Held: As per s.492(3) requirement of consent 
of landlord is required only when the tenant intends to obtain a 
licence for the first time - Such consent is not required for renewal 
of the licence - However, even for obtaining the licence for--the first 
time, applicant-tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful busi-
ness merely because landlord withheld the consent - Valid tenancy 
itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the 
premises by the tenant - Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1965. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The statutory provision i.e. s. 492(3) of Kcrala Mu-
nicipality Act, 1994 shows that the requirement of consent of 
landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a li-
cence for the first time. Renewal or subsequent application for 
obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, 
during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining 
licence. Even in the case of application for obtaining licence for 
the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of tunning lawful 
business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. Valid 
tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate 
use of the premises by the tenant. [Para 8) [1047-A-B] 
Marimuthu & Ors. v. D.GP. & others (1999 3 KLT 
662) - approved. 
Case Law Reference 
(1999 3 K.LT 662) 
approved 
Para6 
1043 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5435 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2013 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Ernakulam in W. A. No. 356 of2013. 
Raghunath, Adv. for the Appellant. 
P. V. Dinesh (For Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj), Adv. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 
I. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.356 of 
2013 in C.W.P. No.9843 of201 I dated 06.03.2013 whereby the High 
Court has held that the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary 
for renewal of tenant's licence for running a hardware shop. 
2. Short question involved in this appeal is the interpretation of 
Section 492 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which reads as 
under: 
"(3) Where any person intending to obtain a licence or per-
mission for the first time and where the applicant is a person 
other than the owner of the premises in question, he shall, 
along with the application produce the written consent of the 
owner of the premises and the period of the licence shall not 
exceed the period, if any, specified in the consent. " 
3. Facts of the case are not in dispute. Appellant is the tenant of 
suit premises in Trivandrum District of Kerala since 01.06.200 I. He 
was issued a licence with the consent of the landlord to run hardware 
business on 22. I 0.200 I by the village panchayat in question. His appli-
cation for renewal was rejected on the ground that he did not produce 
consent of the landlord. But the Tribunal for Local Self Government 
Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram vide order dated 21" March, 2011 up-
held the plea of the appellant that the consent of the landlord was re-
quired when applying forthe first time. Renewal cannot be refused only 
on the ground that the fresh consent was not produced by the statutory 
tenant. A person once inducted as tenant continued as statutory tenant 
by virtue of statutory provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent 
SUDHAKARAN v. CORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR. 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
Control) Act, 1965 till the tenancy is terminated in acc?rdance with law. 
The operative order of the Tribunal is as follows : 
"15. It is to be noted in this context that the Revision Peti-
tioner has not applied for a licence for the jirst time, I al-
ready said that the petitioner has been running the trade on 
the basis of a valid licence at least up to 31.3.2008. Under 
Section 492(3) of the Kera/a Municipality Act, a consent of 
the owner is needed only for obtaining licence for the fir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.