9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease-deed dated 26.8.1963 for a term of 10 years a plot of land measuring 51'x 118' situate near the Army Headquarters, Lower Mall, Patiala for M/s. Jain Motor from its owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh. He was only a partner of M/s. Jain Motors in 1963, but later became its sole owner in 1967. The defendant/respondent took from the appellant on licence for one year under a deed dated 10.12.1969 the suit shed for carrying on the work of repair of motors, tractors, etc. But since he did not vacate the shed after the expiry of the period he terminated the licence and filed the suit on 15.2.1973 for a mandatory injunction directing him to vacate the premises. The respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant sub-let to him a plot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iver vacant possession of the shed in dispute to the appellant. 4. In the second appeal the respondent filed an application for receiving as additional evidence a sale-deed dated 27.8.1979 whereby he claimed to have purchased the entire property from its original owner. The High Court called for finding in that regard from the trial court which thereupon found that the respondent has purchased the property from its original owner by that sale deed. It was contended in the High Court that in view of that sales, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the respondent in whom the title to the property has come to be vested after the date of the suit, is liable to be ejected on the revocation of the license granted to him by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit. 6. Now the parties are bound by the following factual findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in the first appeal namely: (1) that the appellant who had become the sole proprietor of M/s. Jain Motors in 1967 through at the time of the lease of the property by the original owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh to M/s. Jain Motors in 1963 he was only one of its partners, was the lessee of the property; (2) that the respondent had become a licensee of the suit shed under the appellant when the appellant was in possession of the whole of the demised premises including th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as he then was speaking for the Division Bench has observed: After the termination of licence, the licensee is under clear obligation to surrender his possession to the owner and if he fails to do so, we do not see any reason why the licensee cannot be compelled to discharge this obligation by way of a mandatory injunction under Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act. We might further mention that even under English law a suit for injunction to evict a licensee has always been held to be maintainable. Where a licensor approaches the court for an injunction within a reasonable time after the licence is terminated, he is entitled to the injunction. On the other hand, if the licensor causes huge delay the court may refuse the discretion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
