The Court held that the Deed of Release dated 10th December 2015 clearly established relinquishment of tenancy rights. No new tenancy agreement or documentation authorized continued possession. The Power of Attorney Holder’s actions were deemed unauthorized and surreptitious. The cancellation of the business license by Respondent No.1 was upheld.

Major Acts and Sections:

• Constitution of India, Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Power to issue writs for enforcement of rights

Subjects:

Proxy Litigation — License Cancellation — Tenancy Relinquishment — Deed of Release — Eviction Suit — Possession Dispute — Writ Petition — Competent Authority

Nature of Litigation:

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of her business license by the Respondent No.1 (Diu Municipal Council).

Relief Sought:

The Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 1st September 2022, passed by Respondent No.1, cancelling the business license (Licence No.153) for the suit property.

Reason for Filing:

The Petitioner alleged unlawful cancellation of her license despite her continued possession of the suit premises after executing a Deed of Release relinquishing tenancy rights.

Prior Decisions:

Respondent No.1 had cancelled the license based on the complaint by Respondent No.2, asserting that the Petitioner’s tenancy rights had been relinquished and possession had been wrongly retained.

Issues:

1. Whether the cancellation of the business license was legally justified after the Petitioner executed a Deed of Release?

2. Whether the Petitioner’s Power of Attorney Holder had any lawful authority to continue business from the suit premises?

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Petitioner’s Counsel:

• Claimed lawful possession of the suit property despite the Deed of Release.

• Argued that the Respondent’s complaint indicated acceptance of the Petitioner’s continued possession.

b) Respondent No.1’s Counsel:

• Justified cancellation of the license based on the executed Deed of Release dated 10th December 2015.

c) Respondent No.2’s Counsel:

• Stated that the Petitioner ceased to be a tenant after the Deed of Release and any continued possession was unauthorized.

Ratio:

The Court ruled that once tenancy rights are relinquished through a valid Deed of Release, continued possession without legal authorization is not tenable. The license cancellation was a justified administrative action.