JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue License renewing exhibit P2 to the petitioner without insisting the petitioner to produce a fresh renewed lease deed from the 3rd respondent.” 2. The issue raised in the writ petition relates non-renewal of the trade license by the Secretary of the Kanjirappally Grama Panchayat for want of fresh consent from the landlord. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that the petitioner and the third respondent have entered into a lease arrangement whereby the petitioner is occupying the building of the third respondent-landlord. Dispute arose by and between the parties consequent to which third respondent has filed RC (OP) No. 3/2015 before the Rent Control Court, Kanjirappally. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Rent Control Petition was allowed and eviction is ordered and being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred RCA No. 4/2020, which is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, Kottayam under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act 1965’). 3. The paramount contention advanced is that when the petitioner approached the Secretary of the Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat seeking renewal of the trade license, it was being declined for the reason that the petitioner has not produced any consent from the landlord. The question is whether the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is entitled to insist for a successive consent from the landlord once the building is occupied by the tenant and trade license is once issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Liji J. Vadakedom and perused the pleadings and materials on record. Though notice is served on the Panchayat and landlord, there is no appearance. 5. The issue with respect to the consent of the landlord for renewal of trade license in fact, is guided under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, but there is no such provision under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994. Though notice is served on the Panchayat and landlord, there is no appearance. 5. The issue with respect to the consent of the landlord for renewal of trade license in fact, is guided under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, but there is no such provision under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994. Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994, clearly specifies that where any person intending to obtain a license or permission for the first time and where the applicant is a person other than the owner of the premises in question, he shall, along with the application produce the written consent of the owner of the premises and the period of license shall not exceed the period, if any, specified in the consent. However, such a provision is not available in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The relationship between a landlord and a tenant is guided by the Act, 1965. Therefore, once a tenant is put in possession of a building, he is entitled to enjoy the benefits conferred thereunder and the landlord can only proceed against the tenant by resorting to the provisions of the Act, 1965. Here is a case where the landlord has filed a Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control Court, Kanjirappally and therefore, under no circumstances, it can be legally presumed that the landlord will provide consent to the tenant to renew the trade license, which if done would be detrimental and ruinous to the litigation instituted by him. But fact remains, at the same time, if the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is insisting for the consent from the landlord for renewal of trade license, it would totally interfere with the rights of the tenant protected under the Act 1965, to continue in the building and carry on the trade in his status either as a contractual tenant, or a statutory tenant under the Act 1965. In that view of the matter, if the principles contained under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, dealing with the procedure for renewing trade license, is adopted, it would be meaningful, that when the tenant seeks a licence for the first time, the Secretary of the Panchayat may be justified to insist for a consent from the landlord. In that view of the matter, if the principles contained under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, dealing with the procedure for renewing trade license, is adopted, it would be meaningful, that when the tenant seeks a licence for the first time, the Secretary of the Panchayat may be justified to insist for a consent from the landlord. If such a view is not adopted, the resultant quotient would be nothing short of travesty of justice causing serious prejudice to the tenants occupying the building; because without securing a trade licence, they may not be able to carry on the business in a tenanted premises, since if done, it would be clear violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 6. In that view to the matter, I have no hesitation to say that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is not entitled to insist for consent from the landlord, if the tenant was continuing in occupation of tenanted premises after securing trade license from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for the first time. Here is a case where the petitioner has submitted the application before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat seeking renewal of the license, but that was not granted after March 2015. The significant case projected by the petitioner is that consequent to the non-grant of the licence on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, petitioner has secured a deemed licence in contemplation of Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994; which specifies that if an order on the application is not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, etc. 7. 7. The question with respect to the requirement of consent of the landlord for renewal of trade licence was considered by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran vs. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another, 2016 (3) KHC 803 : 2016 (3) KLT 247 in the context of Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and held that the consent of the landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a license for the first time; and the renewal or subsequent application for obtaining license on expiry of the period of the existing license, during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining license. The Apex Court proceeded further and held that even in the case of application for obtaining license for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. 8. In my view the said procedure has to be followed scrupulously in the matter of renewal of the trade license by the Grama Panchayats in order to protect the rights and interests of the tenants, till they are evicted in accordance with law , failing which there will be clear breakdown of the rule of law prevailing in the country; since every landlord would employ such a coercive tactics to forcibly evict the tenants. Which means, even, in absentia of any provision regulating the renewal of the trade license under the Panchayat Raj Act 1994, like the one under the Municipality Act 1994, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat cannot insist for the consent of the landlord for the renewal of the license. In my view, such a right of the tenant is directly referable to Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which unequivocally stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and the expression “persons” referred to therein would definitely include “any person” to whom a legal right is accrued over any property, irrespective of its ownership; and such a person shall not be deprived of his rights over the property, which by itself is an incorporeal property, save by authority of law. In my considered opinion Article 300A of the Constitution of India is founded on the rule of law, and is intended to maintain a disciplined and orderly atmosphere in every sphere of life to sustain democratic principles of the highest order. In my considered opinion Article 300A of the Constitution of India is founded on the rule of law, and is intended to maintain a disciplined and orderly atmosphere in every sphere of life to sustain democratic principles of the highest order. If the parliament did not intend so, it would have employed a definite expression such as landlord or owner of a property, in substitution to the expression “any person.” Therefore the broadest meaning has to be given to the dictate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India in order to sustain the rule of law prevailing in the country. 10. Evaluating so, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition especially due to the fact that he is entitled to get protection as per the provisions of the Act, 1965 till he is evicted in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and consequently, the Secretary of the Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat is directed to consider any trade license application submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application, if there are no other adverse consequences standing in the way of the Secretary to do so, other than the one raised by the Secretary for want of consent from the landlord. 9. In fact, when this writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, status quo was directed to be maintained as per an order dated 06.01.2016 which was being periodically extended and finally extended until further orders on 08.07.2016, which is still in force. Till such time the application of the petitioner is considered as directed above, the interim order will continue to be in force.