2019 (7) TMI 1962 - HC - Indian Laws

Directing the petitioner to vacate the premises - statutory license expired - HELD THAT - In this case, it is to be seen that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is purely licensee and licensor and the obligations are arise under the agreement entered between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and admittedly the said agreement provides for arbitration and the reasons cited for the non-renewal is due to extension of activity of the 1st respondent, they are not in a position to grant renewal. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant interim orders when the petitioner's license fee admittedly expired In view of the same I have not find any reason to grant any interim order - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to eviction proceedings based on non-renewal of license agreement.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises by a certain date. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they have been fulfilling their duties, which are public in nature, serving multiple airlines and holding statutory licenses from various authorities. Despite regular payment of license fees and revenue sharing with the 1st respondent, the petitioner alleged discrimination as the 1st respondent was allowing other service providers similar privileges. The petitioner emphasized their minimal land requirement for operations and expressed concerns about public inconvenience if evicted.

On the other hand, the senior counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was that of licensee and licensor based on an agreement, with the license period having expired. Due to the extension of the airport's activities, the 1st respondent claimed inability to renew the petitioner's license agreement. The senior counsel highlighted the arbitration clause in the agreement, suggesting that the court should not intervene as the petitioner had an alternative remedy through arbitration. It was argued that the petitioner, as a licensee, could not seek an injunction against the owner under the Specific Relief Act, especially in a purely commercial transaction where no public interest was at stake.

The court noted the contractual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, governed by the agreement containing an arbitration clause. The court observed that the non-renewal of the license was attributed to the extension of the 1st respondent's activities, rendering them unable to extend the petitioner's license. Considering these circumstances, the court held that it was not appropriate to grant interim orders, particularly since the petitioner's license had expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim applications filed by the petitioner.