The petitioners purchased an extent of 12.511 cents of land in re-survey No: 1164/A-3 and 1164/A-6 of Avanavanchery Village along with a building situate therein having 5 shop rooms. Respondents 3 to 5 are conducting business from the said shop rooms except one. They were put in occupation of the shop rooms by the previous owners of the property. The case of the petitioners is that after they had purchased the property and the shop rooms they have not given any consent to the respondents to continue in occupation of the shop rooms. As per Exts.P2 and P3 orders in RCP Nos 7/11 and 16/2011 the petitioners have obtained orders of eviction against the tenants. In spite of the orders of eviction, it is contended that, the tenants are continuing in occupation of the shop rooms, conducting business from the premises. The petitioners therefore approached the first respondent by submitting Ext.P5 pointing out that, since they have not given consent for the continued occupation of the tenants their licences should not be renewed. Pursuant to Exts. P6 and P7 the parties were heard. The petitioners complain that no final orders have been passed by the panchayat in the matter. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions for finalisation of the proceedings initiated by the respondents. Adv.Ayyappan Sankar appears for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Heard. It is not in dispute that, respondents 3 to 5 are in occupation of the shop rooms situate in the property. They have been in occupation of the shop rooms having been put in possession thereof by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. They are conducting business on the strength of licences issued by respondents 1 and 2. The contention of the petitioners is that, after purchase of the property by them, they have not issued any consent for the continued occupation of the tenants. Though the counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, a perusal of the said provision does not show that, a consent of the landlord is necessary for the continued occupation of the tenant in the premises. The consent of the landlord is necessary only for the initial grant of licence, which the tenants have admittedly obtained, from the predecessor- in-title of the petitioners. Therefore, the contention that the tenants are entitled to continue in occupation of the premises only upon obtaining fresh consent from the landlords is rejected.
3. It appears that the petitioner has obtained orders of eviction against the tenants. It is for the petitioners to execute the said orders and to obtain vacant possession of the premises from the tenants. The proceedings initiated on Ext.P5 by the first respondent cannot be a substitute for the execution proceedings that is contemplated for execution of the orders of the Rent Control Court. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any direction to complete the proceedings initiated by Ext.P6 should be issued by this Court. Such an order would only give a wrong signal to the statutory authorities.
In view of the above I find no grounds to entertain this writ petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge