AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J.
The petitioner is the co-owner of a commercial building. The building is taken on lease by the 4th respondent, for conducting a bar hotel. Ext.P1 is
the lease agreement between the parties. It is dated 18.08.2017. As per Ext.P1, the term of lease is for five years from 01.08.2017.
On 08.10.2020, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P2 notice, terminating the lease with effect from 31.03.2021. As per Ext.P3 dated 23.11.2020, the
petitioner accepted the termination. However, thereafter, the 4th respondent submitted an application for renewal of FL-3 licence for the premises
with effect from 01.04.2021. In spite of the objections raised by the petitioner and the other co-owners, the authorities renewed the licence.
Thereupon the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8701/2021. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.08.2021 directed the
authorities to consider the objection. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P10 order dated 26.09.2021 has been issued rejecting the objection. The said order is under
challenge in this writ petition.
Heard Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri.M.G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondents 4 and 5 and Smt.K.M.Rashmi, the learned Government Pleader.
To overrule the objections of the petitioner, the third respondent has stated that, no document evidencing termination of the lease agreement was
produced.
Clause-8 of Ext.P1 lease agreement deals with “TERMINATIONâ€. Clause 8.1 of Ext.P1 reads thus:-
“8.1-This agreement shall terminate by mutual agreement by the parties after giving a notice of six months.â€
Section 111(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides for determination of lease on surrender by the lessee. As per Ext.P2 notice, the 4th
respondent lessee has terminated the lease by surrender with effect from 31.03.2021. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner has accepted the surrender. Both
the notices have been referred to by the authority. Therefore, the third respondent is not right in his stand that no document evidencing termination of
the lease arrangement is produced.
The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Happy Homes
(Private) Ltd. [1968 SC 471] and a Division Bench of this Court in Sulaikha Beevi v. K.C.Mathew [1997 (1) KLT 69] to contend that, for
determination of tenancy at the instance of the tenant, actual delivery of possession is not necessary.
Be that as it may, in the light of the above, it is for the third respondent to reconsider the objection in the light of the documents as above and pass
appropriate orders.
Accordingly Ext.P10 order is quashed. The third respondent shall pass fresh orders on the objections urged by the petitioner regarding renewal of
FL3 licence to respondents 4 and 5. Let orders be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is allowed as above.