G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition instituted by the petitioners is directed against the issuance of licence and permission by the Municipality on 14-6-1977 in favour of respondent No. 1 to construct a building for the use of his dispensary and nursing home. ( 2 ) IT appears that these writ petitioners are tenants in the existing building which will have to be demolished and, reconstructed according to the plan submitted and the licence issued by the Municipality. It is, therefore, the case of the; writ petitioners that before issuing licence they should have been given an, opportunity by the Municipality to submit their say. 'the next point that is made out in the writ petition is that the Municipality before issuing licence has, "not taken prior consent of the Town planning Authority and the Highway authority. These are the points that, are raised for my consideration in this writ petition. ( 3 ) I would first advert to the second' point. It is seen that in the year 1977 there was no Town Planning Authority at all. Hence, there was no occasion to take prior consent of the Town planning Authority. But, subsequently, however, the licence issued in the year 1977 has been renewed from year to year. Therefore, when the first respondent approached the Muncipal council to give him permission to alter the plan slightly and to renew the licence, the Town Municipal Council directed him to obtain prior permission of the Town Planning Authority which came into existence by then and it is seen as per Ext-K-10, he has now obtained the approval qf the Town planning Authority to put up the proposed construction. Similarly, he has obtained no objection certificate from the High Way Authority as per ext. R. 8. Therefore, the second point raised by the writ petitioner would not be available now. The only point that survives for my consideration is whether it was necessary to the Town municipal Council to give opportunity to the tenants occupying the building while giving the licence for reconstruction. The relevant provision in the karnataka Municipalities Act is contained in S. 187 of the Karna,taka 'municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The only point that survives for my consideration is whether it was necessary to the Town municipal Council to give opportunity to the tenants occupying the building while giving the licence for reconstruction. The relevant provision in the karnataka Municipalities Act is contained in S. 187 of the Karna,taka 'municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 187 (3) (d) reads:"save as otherwise provided in this act or the rules and byerlaws made thereunder, the municipal council may refuse permission to construct, alter, add or reconstruct according to the plan and information furnished, in the undermentioned circumstances, the reasons for refusal being stated in the order. "nowhere it is laid down in, the clauses that follow that permission shall not be granted, if the tenants occupying the premises objected to it. Therefore, the law as it is or the bye-laws would not require that the notice should be issued to the tenants occupying the premises concerned before giving permission to the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the building. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners invited my attention to a, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater bombay v. Lala Panpham (1), wherein their Lordships have observed thus:"there is no express mention of tenants in either of the, provisions contained in, S. 354 RA and Sch. GG but from the fact that cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of S. 354 RA requires the publication of the clearance order it would be reasonable to infer that the object of doing so is to invite objections at the instance of persons who would be affected by the order. Since tenants would be affected by it, they fall in this class. Sub-section (2) of S. 354r casts certain duties upon the Corporation with respect to the persons who are likely to be dishoused in consequence of the clearance order. It would, therefore, be legitimate to infer that a corresponding right was conferred upon the tenants to secure the, performance of its duties towards them by the corporation. This right would be in addition to their interest in, the property itself. They must, therefore, be held to be persons who are entitled to lodge an objection to the proposed order. It would, therefore, be legitimate to infer that a corresponding right was conferred upon the tenants to secure the, performance of its duties towards them by the corporation. This right would be in addition to their interest in, the property itself. They must, therefore, be held to be persons who are entitled to lodge an objection to the proposed order. "it is no doubt true that the facts of that case and under the provisions of seecs. 351 and 354ra and Schedule gg, the Supreme Court ruled that while making clearance order the persons whose interests are vitally affected should be notified and their objections heard. That is a normal inference that the Supreme Court raises from the sections and on the principles of natural justice. There cannot be any quarrel with it. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, however, the facts are entirely different. If there is a provision in the Rent Control Act enabling the landlord to obtain eviction of the tenant merely on the basis of a licence issued by the muncipality, then it can be said that the interest of the tenants would be vitally affected by the licence issued and that therefore they should be heard before the municipality issues licence for reconstruction of the premises. There is no clause, however, in the Rent Control act under proviso to clause 21 (1) which enables a landlord to evict a tenant merely on the basis of a licence that he has obtained from the municipality. Therefore, the interests of the tenant are not directly affected by the municipality issuing the licence to the landlord or the proprietor to reconstruct a building. ( 6 ) NOT merely that, the Rent Control act gives ample opportunity and occasion to the tenant to contest a proceeding if the landlord brings an action for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the existing building under clause (j) of the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the said Act. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court stated above has no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is part of the proprietary right of the landlord to make use of the building in a, way that he pleases. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court stated above has no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is part of the proprietary right of the landlord to make use of the building in a, way that he pleases. It is no doubt true that reasonable restrictions are placed on the rights of the landlord in the matter of eviction of tenants and rack renting under the provisions of the Rent control Act. But, so far as the question of issuance of licence by the munici- palitv is concerned, the authority that should be directly interested in the issue of such licences would be the town Planning Authority and if there is any highway nearby the Highway authority would also be interested. The tenants that occupy the building cannot be said to have any right to have their submission made before the licence is issued because, that would not directly and forthwith affect their interests. They will have their opportunity to submit their say when a suit for eviction is instituted by the landlord. As pointed out above, the mere issuance of licence would not give rise to any cause of action for the eviction of tenants whose interests are amply safeguarded by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Hence, I am not persuaded with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that the tenants should be heard before a licence is issued to the landlord to alter or reconstruct his own building. Such a licence, it may be pointed out, if at all, would be a piece of evidence before the Rent Control Court when a landlord brings a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground, as stated above, for demolition and reconstruction of the building under clause (j) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the said Act. That being so, i reject the contention of the learned counsel that the tenants shall be given notice and shall be heard in the matter before the municipal, authority issues licence to the landlord for reconstruction or alteration of the building. ( 7 ) IN the view, that I have taken it is obvious that the writ petition is not maintainable and that it is liable to be rejected and I reject the same. --- *** --- .