L. S. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the endorsement dated 11-3-96 issued by the third respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of trade licence to run a printing press in No. 68, 29th 'a' cross, geetha colony, iv block, jayanagar, Bangalore, vide annexure-a. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, premises No. 68 situate at no. 29th 'a' cross, geetha colony, iv block, jayanagar is the joint family property. Respondent 4 has been impleaded as additional respondent in the case. Further, it is also the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit for partition and possession of his share in o. s. No. 5177 of 1989 before the city civil judge, Bangalore. He is said to have filed another suit in o. s. No. 2716 of 1996 for injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the running of the printing press which has been installed in premises No. 68, jayanagar, Bangalore. Respondent 4 claims to be the owner of premises No. 68 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 9-8-1989 executed by b. p. rama rao who is said to be the father of the petitioner. The khata of the property stands in the name of the first respondent and the tax paid receipts also show the name of the 4th respondent. ( 3 ) SRI. Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the second respondent has no power or authority in law to insist on production of documents mentioned in the endorsement Annexure-A and in this context he invited my attention to bye-law no, 41 of the corporation of city of Bangalore. It lays down certain conditions for grant of licence for the installation or running of printing machinery, if any. The form of application is also mentioned in the bye-law. Bye-law No. 2 (b) provides for an appeal to the standing committee (cell ). No doubt, bye-law No. 41 or the form of application do not contain the production of any document for purpose of grant of licence. The contention of Sri jayakar is that since bye-law No. 41 does not contain the production of documents mentioned in Annexure-A to the writ petition, the second respondent ought not to have insisted on production of those documents. The contention of Sri jayakar is that since bye-law No. 41 does not contain the production of documents mentioned in Annexure-A to the writ petition, the second respondent ought not to have insisted on production of those documents. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri narayanaswamy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contended before me that the commissioner has powers under the Karnataka municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the act') to insist on the production of documents mentioned in Annexure-A and since those documents were not produced, the application of the petitioner for grant of licence to install the printing press has been rightly refused. Sri manjunath, learned counsel for respondent 4 submits that though bye-law No. 41 does not contain the nature of documents to be produced for purpose of consideration of grant of licence, under Section 447 of the act the commissioner can call upon the applicant to produce the documents for purpose of grant of any licence or permission under the Provisions of the act. Section 447 of the act reads thus:"447. Summons to attend and give evidence or produce documents. the commissioner may summon any person to attend before him, and to give evidence or produce documents, as the case may be, in respect of any question relating to taxation, or inspection or registration or to the grant of any licence or permission under the Provisions of the Act,"the licensing authority in this case, in order to satisfy himself before granting of any licence or permission under the Provisions of the Act, is empowered to call upon the applicant to produce such document as may be necessary for purpose of granting the licence. In the instant case, the petitioner was called upon to produce the following documents: (I) owner's consent letter; (ii) neighbour's consent letter; (in) Karnataka sales tax certificate; (iv) central sales tax certificate; (v) professional tax certificate; and (vi) small scale industry certificate. however, the petitioner could only produce the neighbour's consent letter, machinery lay-out plan and the sanctioned plan and he could not produce the owner's consent and up-to-date tax paid receipt because the 4th respondent who claims to be the owner of the property refused to give the consent letter. The petitioner could not also produce the up-to-date tax paid receipt since the municipal tax in respect of the building is being paid by the 4th respondent. The petitioner could not also produce the up-to-date tax paid receipt since the municipal tax in respect of the building is being paid by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has produced the khata certificate, tax paid receipt, sale deed and transfer of electrical connection in respect of the said premises. A person in possession of the premises and who is not the owner of the premises is not entitled to obtain licence or permission without producing the consent letter of the owner. If the licence is granted without insisting on the owner's consent it might lead to very dangerous consequences. It cannot be said that the licensing authority has no power under the Provisions of the act to ascertain the ownership of the premises in which the machinery is proposed to be installed and whether the owner of the building has any objection for such licence being granted. So also, the neighbour's letter is necessary to avoid nuisance to the neighbourhood. Therefore, in my view , there is no justifiable ground to quash annexure-a. ( 5 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed. I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .