9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the document: License vs. Lease 2. Legal possession and rights of the petitioners 3. Right of the Corporation to evict the petitioners 4. Validity of the ad interim injunction 5. Authority of the Corporation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Document: License vs. Lease The primary issue revolves around whether the document dated 11th December 1973, executed between the petitioners and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation), constituted a lease or a license. The petitioners argued that the document, although styled as a license deed, was in fact a lease deed, granting them exclusive possession and creating an interest in the property. They contended that the intention of the parties was to create a lease, as evidenced by their exclusive control over the Kiosks for business purposes. The court, however, held that the document was a license. The terms and conditions of the auction and the deed indicated that the Corporation intended to grant only a license. The document gave the petitioners the liberty to occupy and use the Kiosks for a period of 11 months, with no right to alternative accommodation upon termination. The legal possession remained with the Corporation, and the petitioners' possession was lawful only due to the permission granted by the Corporation. The court emphasized that the intention of the parties is the real test for ascertaining the character of a document, and in this case, the intention was to grant a license. 2. Legal Possession and Rights of the Petitioners The petitioners claimed that they were in settled possession of the Kiosks and could not be evicted without due process of law. They argued that their possession was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and that the Corporation had acquiesced in their possession by accepting license fees even after the expiration of the initial license period. The court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioners' possession was not "settled possession" as they were licensees and not tenants. The legal possession of the Kiosks remained with the Corporation, and the petitioners' occupation was lawful only due to the license granted to them. Upon revocation of the license, the petitioners had no legal right to continue occupying the Kiosks. 3. Right of the Corporation to Evict the Petitioners The Corporation argued that it had the right to evict the petitioners as the license had expired, and the petitioners were bound to vacate the Kiosks. The court upheld this argument, stating that the Corporation's right to re-enter and resume possession of the Kiosks was clear from the terms of the license deed. The court noted that the Corporation did not need to secure a decree of the court to enforce its right of re-entry, as the petitioners' possession was unlawful after the revocation of the license. 4. Validity of the Ad Interim Injunction The petitioners sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the Kiosks. The trial court initially granted an ex parte injunction, but later vacated it, holding that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Corporation. The appellate court upheld this decision. The High Court agreed with the lower courts, stating that the petitioners had not shown a legal right to continue occupying the Kiosks. The court emphasized that granting an injunction is a matter of discretion, and the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience was in their favor. 5. Authority of the Corporation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 The petitioners contended that the Corporation did not have the authority to grant a license under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and could only grant a lease. They argued that the Corporation, being an artificial person created by statute, could only exercise powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that the power to hold immovable property inherently includes the power to grant a license to use the property. The court found no merit in the argument that the Corporation could not grant a license to fetch income from its property. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the document in question was a license and not a lease. The petitioners had no legal right to continue occupying the Kiosks after the expiration of the license. The Corporation had the right to evict the petitioners without securing a decree from the court. The petitioners' request for an ad interim injunction was rightly denied by the lower courts. The court found no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the appellate court's decision. The petitions were dismissed with costs to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents.
|
