JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The petitioner is in occupation of a shop room within the jurisdiction of the Kollam Corporation. Originally he started as a tenant of the building. The petitioner now claims that by virtue of an agreement for sale and by part performance thereof, he has become entitled to proprietary rights over the same by virtue of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The door of the shop room was originally comprised of wooden planks. By passage of time, according to the petitioner, the same became unsafe for protection of the shop room. Therefore, he replaced the same by rolling shutters. On the ground that he did not obtain a permit from the Corporation for replacing the door of the shop room, proceedings were initiated and by Ext. P9, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the rolling shutters installed by the petitioner. Against the said order of the Secretary of the Corporation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was dismissed by Ext. P13. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P9 and P13 orders in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that replacing wooden planks with rolling shutters is not a construction activity which requires permit from the Corporation. He takes me through various provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, particularly, Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. According to him, as per Rule 10, providing or removing of windows or doors or ventilators has been specifically included in the works, which do not require a building permit. He submits that if providing a new door where there was no door at all, does not require a building permit, then replacing existing door would not also require a building permit. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief’s : i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order quashing Exts. P9 & P13 and all prior and further proceedings thereon. ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to desist from demolishing the rolling iron shutter installed in place of the dilapidated wooden plank doors of shop room No. VP-7/405. iii. P9 & P13 and all prior and further proceedings thereon. ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to desist from demolishing the rolling iron shutter installed in place of the dilapidated wooden plank doors of shop room No. VP-7/405. iii. To declare that the replacement of dilapidated wooden plank doors with rolling iron shutters will not amount to construction or reconstruction as contemplated u/s 2(38) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. 2. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the replacement of wooden planks by rolling shutters is a work which requires a building permit, it is also submitted by the counsel for the Corporation that u/s 386 of the Kerala Municipality Act, no door, gate, bar or ground floor window which opens on any public street shall be constructed or reconstructed without a licence u/s 366. According to him, this particular door opens into a public street and therefore the petitioner could not have re-constructed the door without obtaining a licence u/s 366, which he has not obtained. It is also submitted that the construction undertaken by the petitioner was without the consent of the landlord, which also is violation of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules. 3. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the building. He claims to have sold the building to the 4th respondent Both respondents 3 and 4 take the stand that the petitioner could not have replaced the wooden planks by rolling shutters without obtaining a permit from the Corporation. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules reads thus: 10. He claims to have sold the building to the 4th respondent Both respondents 3 and 4 take the stand that the petitioner could not have replaced the wooden planks by rolling shutters without obtaining a permit from the Corporation. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules reads thus: 10. Permit not necessary for certain works.-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no building permit shall be necessary for executing the following works which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding general building requirements, structural stability and fire safety requirements of the rules, namely:- (i) Providing or removing of windows or doors or ventilators; (ii) Providing inter-communication doors; (iii) Providing or removing of partitions; (iv) Gardening excluding any permanent structures; (v) White or colour washing; (vi) Painting; (vii) Petty repairs to the building and pitched roof; (viii) Plastering and patch work; and (ix) Interior decoration without any structural alterations; (x) changing of the location of the building or construction within the plot: Provided that the details of works under item (ix) shall be intimated to the Secretary at least ten days before the commencement of such work, with particulars regarding the existing conditions in full so as to enable him to make an assessment of the nature of work. If the Secretary has any objection it shall be communicated to the applicant within ten days: Provided further that the changing of the location under item (x) shall be incorporated in the completion plan. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if providing a new door where there was no door at all, does not require a building permit under the said Rule, then replacement of an existing door also is a construction, which requires no building permit. 6. Section 386 of the Kerala Municipality Act Reads thus: 386. Prohibition of construction of doors, ground floor windows and bars so as to open outwards.--No door, gate, bar or ground floor window which opens on any public street shall be constructed or reconstructed so as to open outwards except with a licence u/s 366. The learned counsel for the Corporation argues that in view of Section 386, without obtaining a licence u/s 366, the petitioner could not have re-constructed the door, which opens into a public street. Section 366 reads thus: 366. The learned counsel for the Corporation argues that in view of Section 386, without obtaining a licence u/s 366, the petitioner could not have re-constructed the door, which opens into a public street. Section 366 reads thus: 366. Prohibition and regulation of doors, ground floor windows and bars opening outwards.-- (1) No door, gate, bar or ground floor window shall, without a licence from the Municipality be hung or placed so as to open outwards upon any street. (2) The Secretary may, by notice, require the owner of such door, gate, bar, or window to alter it so that no part thereof, when open, shall project over the street. It is plain for anybody to see that Sections 366 and 386 apply only if a door is constructed or re-constructed so as to open outward into a public street. Here, the existing wooden planks used as door is replaced by rolling shutters, which does not open outwards into a public street That being so, no licence u/s 366 is required for such re-construction as well. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that replacement of wooden planks by rolling shutters by the petitioner is not an activity or construction, which would require a permit either under the Kerala Municipality Act or under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. No provision of law which requires the consent of the landlord for such construction has also been brought to my notice. Therefore, the second contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation is also unsustainable. That being so, the interference by the Corporation in the said activity is clearly without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, Exts. P9 and P13 orders are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner does not require any permit for replacement of the wooden planks used as doors by rolling shutters. But, I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the tenancy, which is left open to be agitated by the parties before the appropriate Civil Court. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.