Whether son in law can not claim that licence granted to him by his father in law has become irrevocable?

For availing the protection by invoking the provision of clause (b) Section 60, it must be shown that the execution of a work of permanent nature had been done by the licensee acting upon the licence. The work must be of a permanent character and the licensee must have incurred expenses in the execution. The expression 'acting upon the licence is of great significance in deciding the question of irrevocability of a licence under Section 60(b) of the Act. This Rule of irrevocability is, in fact, based on the principle of an implied grant arising from the conduct of the licensor which estops him from claiming his right of revocation.

In the present case, there is no such specific pleading that renovation work was made by the defendant acting upon the licence and in pursuance of the licence granted by the plaintiff. The defendant claims to have been gifted with the land and thus is in possession on his own right. So, the present stand as regards the irrevocability of the licence is in conflict with the main plea. He never comes forward in so claiming as a licensee nor has placed in the courts below that instead of the claim of relationship as landlord and tenant, there was the relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover two important factual aspects as placed by the defendant being taken for consideration, those prevent with full force, the attractibility of the provisions of Section 60 (b) of Easements Act. The first one is that of leaving of one room at the desire of plaintiff without any demur and the next one is that of demand of the money spent after the renovation. In view of the relationship between the parties s father-in-law and son-in-law, even accepting for a moment that some renovation work was done by the defendant and in view the very case of the defendant as aforestated, the present submission to thwart the suit of the plaintiff banking upon the provision of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act falls flat.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2016Ori1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

RSA No. 9 of 2015

Decided On: 12.08.2015

Appellants: Mohammed Jamsed
Vs.
Respondent: Sk. Altab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:D. Dash, J.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Licensor can file suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession of licensed premises from licensee

The correct position in law is that the licensee may be the actual occupant but the licensor is the person having control or possession of the property through his licensee even after the termination of the licence. Licensee may have to continue to be in occupation of the premises for sometime to wind up the business, if any. In such a case licensee cannot be treated as a trespasser. It would depend upon the facts of the particular case. But there may be cases where after termination or revocation of the licence the licensor does not take prompt action to evict licensee from the premises. In such an event the ex-licensee may be treated as a trespasser and the licensee will have to sue for recovery of possession. There can be no doubt that there is a need for the licensor to be vigilant. A licensee's occupation does not become hostile possession or the possession of a trespasser the moment the licence comes to an end. The licensor has to file the suit with promptitude and if it is shown that within reasonable time a suit for mandatory injunction has been filed with a prayer to direct the licensee to vacate the premises the suit will be maintainable.1
The respondent was a licensee, and he must be deemed to be always a licensee. It is not open to him, during the subsistence of the licence or in the suit for recovery of possession of the property instituted after the revocation of the licence to set up title to the property in himself or anyone else. It is his plain duty to surrender possession of the property as a licensee and seek his remedy separately in case he has acquired title to the property subsequently though some other person. He need not do so if he has acquired title to the property from the licensor or from someone else lawfully claiming under him, in which case there would be clear merger. The respondent has not surrendered possession of the property to the appellant even after the termination of the licence and a institution of the suit.

Supreme Court of India

Joseph Severance And Ors vs Benny Mathew And Ors on 23 September, 2005

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker

Citation;(2005)7 SCC 667

Print Page