2006 (1) TMI 673 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the CPC.
2. Application for withdrawal of a statement under Section 151 of the CPC.
3. The nature of the plaintiff's occupancy and whether the license was revocable or irrevocable.
4. The plaintiff's entitlement to protection from dispossession without due process of law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the CPC:
The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The plaintiff argued that they were entitled to occupy the rooms in perpetuity as there was no termination clause in the license agreement. The plaintiff also contended that even if the license was revocable, they could not be dispossessed without due process of law.

2. Application for Withdrawal of Statement under Section 151 of the CPC:
The defendants sought permission to withdraw a statement made by their senior counsel on 16.03.2005, in which they assured the court that status quo would be maintained regarding the premises in question until the next hearing. The court noted that the decision on the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC would address this request.

3. The Nature of the Plaintiff's Occupancy and Whether the License was Revocable or Irrevocable:
The plaintiff argued that the license was irrevocable as there was an implied understanding that it was in perpetuity. The defendants countered that the plaintiff was merely a licensee and not a tenant, and that the license was revocable. The court agreed with the defendants, stating that the license was clearly revocable as it was not coupled with a transfer of property nor had the plaintiff executed a work of a permanent character in the suit premises. The court relied on the provisions of Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and the terms of the compromise decree, which explicitly stated that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant.

4. The Plaintiff's Entitlement to Protection from Dispossession Without Due Process of Law:
The plaintiff argued that even if the license was revocable, they could not be dispossessed without due process of law. The court examined various precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which held that a person in settled possession could not be dispossessed without recourse to law. However, the court distinguished these cases from the present one, noting that the plaintiff was not in possession in the usual sense but had a mere right to use the rooms. The court concluded that the plaintiff's occupancy was permissive and did not amount to possession. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction against the defendants.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction (IA No. 2061/2005) and allowed the defendants' application to withdraw their statement (IA No. 4326/2005). The court held that the plaintiff's license was revocable, and they were not entitled to protection from dispossession without due process of law as they were not in possession but had a mere right to use the rooms.