( 1 ) THE dispute in this case lies, in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is the proprietor of "praveen Coffee produce" situated at No. 18, H. B. Samaja Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore. The building belongs to Respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has been carrying on the business since 1963. Recently, as usual, he applied for renewal of his licence. But the licence was refused. The reason is this: One of the neighbours of the petitioner appears to have complained to the corporation that the chimney fixed in the petitioner's premises is not of the required height and therefore there is a smoke nuisance. The Corporation directed the petitioner to raise the chimney's height by atleast 3 ft. The petitioner was prepared to do it, but his landlords would not permit it. One of them by letter dated 15-2-1980, warned the petitioner that he should not do anything to the building and: he would not give permission for alteration of any kind. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is therefore helpless. He will have to close his business and in fact he has closed it. He has now approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents. ( 3 ) IT seems to me that the Corporation ought not to have put the petitioner into this helpless Condition. It is not as if the Corporation has no statutory power to command compliance of its direction. Section 462 confers enough power on the commissioner to cause any work to be executed or to take any measure or do anything which, in his opinion may be necessary for giving due effect to the notice, requisition or order made by him; and S. 463 provides power on the commissioner to recover any reasonable expenses incurred under S. 462 from the person or any one of the persons to whom the notice was addressed as a tax on buildings or lands. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the Corporation issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to raise the height of the chimney by 3 ft. as a condition for renewing the licence. The petitioner could not comply with that demand since the landlords refused permission. The motive behind that refusal is not far to seek. They perhaps, do not want the petitioner to continue the business. But the Corporation has a duty to perform. as a condition for renewing the licence. The petitioner could not comply with that demand since the landlords refused permission. The motive behind that refusal is not far to seek. They perhaps, do not want the petitioner to continue the business. But the Corporation has a duty to perform. The power Conferred on the corporation was for the benefit of the public. That power is therefore coupled with duty the performance of which cannot be dependent upon the willingness of the owner of the premises. The petitioner has been doing business in the said premises for over 16 years. It is only recently a complaint has been made by one of the neighbours that the smoke emanating by coffee roasting is causing nuisance. That nuisance could be abated according to the Commissioner, by raising the chimney suitably by 3 feet. If that is the suitable remedy and if that cannot be done by the petitioner-tenant for want, of permission from his landlords, then the commissioner ought to have exercised his powers to raise the chimney to the required height instead of denying the licence to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, A direction shall issue to respondent-1 to do all that is necessary to raise the height of the existing chimney by 3 feet at the cost oi the petitioner, within two months from today. Till then, the petitioner be permitted to carry on his business. His licence also shall be renewed thereafter if he is otherwise entitled to. ( 6 ) ORDERED accordingly. --- *** --- .