- (1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the order dated 17.2.2001, by which the learned trial Court has vacated the temporary injunction passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff earlier.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide letters dated 14.8.97 and 29.12.98, a contract for parking of the vehicles in front of Railway Station, Abu Road, was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years on a fixed licence fee of Rs. 17,084/- to be paid in twenty equal installments. It appears that the complete area, which was agreed upon by the contract, could not be handed over to the petitioner- plaintiff and some lesser area was given for the reason that regarding a part of it, there had been some litigation. Neither he paid the licence fee as per the agreement after expiry of some time, nor paid 10% penalty on the monthly licence fee, nor he complied with the other terms. THE non-petitioner revoked the licence, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, particularly those contained in Clauses 1(b) and 15(b), vide order dated 30.4.99, though the contract could have come to an end on 16.11.99. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners and the trial Court granted temporary injunction vide order dated 3.5.99. Inspite of the fact that the contract came to an end on 16.11.99, under the interim order of the Court, petitioner continued to be in possession without paying any licence fee. It appears that in the meanwhile, the suit had been amended and petitioner sought relief that as she had been given the lesser area than agreed, the period of contract should be extended by the Court. Non-petitioners filed an application for vacating the stay order and vide order dated 9.2.2001, the order impugned has been passed. It may be pertinent to mention here that while entertaining this revision, this Court had also passed an interim order dated 21.3.2001 restraining the non-petitioners to dispossess the petitioner and as there has been some dispute, contempt petitioners are pending for non-compliance of the said order. Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that undoubtedly the contract came to an end on 16.11.99, but as the petitioner had not been put in possession of the area agreed upon in the contract, she was entitled to continue in possession for a longer period; as the contractual tenancy came to an end, petitioner automatically became a statutory tenant and as such she could not be enacted without due process of law; and at any cost, even if the trial Court has vacated the temporary injunction, it has no competence to issue a direction to the petitioner to hand over the possession to the non-petitioner within the stipulated period. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the non-petitioner that once the contract came to an end, petitioner had no right to remain in possession; suit for injunction was not maintainable and at the most, petitioner could have filed a suit for damages, if she was, by any means, aggrieved of termination of contract; and if the contract was terminated for non- compliance of the terms of the contract, she could have no grievance and the trial Court's order does not require any interference whatsoever. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY; the contract came to an end on 16.11.99. It is very doubtful as to whether petitioner could retain possession subsequent thereto for the reason that the submission made by Mr. Lodha that once the contractual tenancy came to an end, statutory tenancy came into existence and the petitioner could be removed only in accordance with law, seems to be preposterous for the reason that petitioner was merely a licensee and not a tenant and the licence came to an end automatically on expiry of its term. Revocation of licence amounts to complete abolition of the right for the exercise of which the licence was granted and it would be tantamount to cancellation for all times to come entailing all vital consequences. (Vide Laxmi Khandsari vs. State of U.P. & Ors (1). Licence merely gives a right to do something upon the immovable property for the grantee which would, in the absence of any such right, be unlawful but it does not create any right, be unlawful but it does not create any right in favour of the grantee in the property. (Vide Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prosad Khandelwal vs. Commissioners, Land Reforms and Jagirs, Madhya Bharat (2); and Puran Singh Sahni vs. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani (4). So far as the competence of the Civil Court to issue a direction to petitioner to hand over the possession within the stipulated period is concerned,. even if it is beyond its competence, no interference is called for because the order passed by the trial Court has advanced the cause of justice and does not occasion a failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the petitioner. ;