SHAKUNTALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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).