The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the stand taken by the second respondent in Ext.P8 notice that, no license to conduct a hotel would be issued in the name of the petitioner without his obtaining a consent from the landlord. The case of the petitioner is that, the hotel was being conducted in building No.439/VIII of Naranamoozhy Panchayat for the past one year. The third respondent is the petitioner's mother in law and is the owner of the building. The fourth respondent is the petitioner's wife. They are not on good terms with each other. The hotel was being conducted by another person as per Ext.P1 agreement. On 5.10.2013, the petitioner purchased the hotel from the said person. Thereafter, as per Ext.P3 rent deed he took the premises on lease in the name of his wife, the fourth respondent. The case of the petitioner is that, the said agreement was executed only for the purpose of obtaining a license from the Panchayat whereas the hotel was actually being conducted by the petitioner himself. On the basis of Ext.P3, Ext.P4 license was issued to the fourth respondent. The license has expired on 31.3.2014. 2. In the meanwhile, disputes arose between the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner, apprehending forcible dispossession has filed O.S.No.84 of 2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Ranny. As per Ext.P6 order, he has been granted an order of temporary injunction against forcible dispossession. The contention of the petitioner is that, since he is continuing in possession on the strength of Ext.P6 interim order, no consent from the landlord is necessary for the purpose of granting a license to him.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. According to the counter affidavit, the hotel was being conducted by the fourth respondent on the strength Ext.P3 rent deed executed in her favour and Ext.P4 license issued to her. The hotel was started, raising money by pledging the ornaments belonging to her. The money was transferred to the joint account in the name of the petitioner and herself. The petitioner has not made any investment in the business as claimed by him. Ext.P6 order which is confined to forcible dispossession alone does not entitle the petitioner to claim the issue of a license to conduct the hotel. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Adv.Jacob P.Alex appears for the Panchayat. According to the counsel, the petitioner's application was not for renewal of a license, no license has been issued in the name of the petitioner at any time. The petitioner's application was for the issue of a fresh license. For the purpose of issuing a fresh license, consent of the landlord is necessary. Since the petitioner has not obtained such consent, Ext.P8 communication was issued to him. The same is perfectly in order.
4. Heard. According to the counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.K.Unni, this Court has held in Marimuthu v. Director
General of Police [1999 KHC 652] that, where consent is
withheld by a landlord an injunction against forcible dispossession would entitle a tenant to claim renewal of license. This is for the reason that, the possession of the tenant would be legal since his possession is protected by the order of temporary injunction. However, I am afraid the said decision cannot be of any help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. In the present case, though Ext.P2 sale deed shows that the business of the hotel has been purchased in the name of the petitioner, Ext.P3 rent deed shows that the premises have been taken on rent by his wife, the fourth respondent. Therefore, the fourth respondent is the tenant of the building. It is in her name that Ext.P4 license was granted. It is not in dispute that, license has not been issued to the petitioner by the Panchayat, at any time. Therefore, the petitioner's application for license was one for a fresh license. The same has necessarily to be supported by the consent of the landlord. It is of course true that the civil court has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner against forcible dispossession. That would not entitle the petitioner to claim a fresh license in his name. It is not clear how the petitioner can claim possession of the premises covered by Ext.P3 rent deed. The decision relied upon by the petitioner related to a tenant who was already in occupation of the tenanted premises. The question related to renewal of a license already issued. Therefore the said dictum cannot help the petitioner in the present case. The rights of the parties are pending adjudication of the civil court in the suit that has already been instituted. The parties would have to abide by the decision of the civil court in the matter. I do not consider it necessary or expedient to interfere with Ext.P8 or grant of any of the reliefs sought for.
For the forgoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.