Case Note & Summary
The Appellants, two NGOs, were allotted Gymnasium Centres by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on caretaker basis for fixed periods. The agreements expired in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Despite expiry, the Appellants continued in possession. In July 2023, MCGM issued revocation letters asking them to vacate. The Appellants filed suits seeking injunction against revocation and dispossession. The City Civil Court dismissed their notice of motion. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the licences had expired by efflux of time and were revocable at will. The Appellants had no prima facie case, balance of convenience was against them, and no irreparable loss was shown. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Licence - Revocation of Licence - Caretaker Agreement - The Appellants were granted licences to use Gymnasium Centres on caretaker basis for fixed periods. After expiry, the licences stood revoked by efflux of time. The Municipal Corporation's revocation letters were merely confirmatory. The Appellants have no right to continue in possession after expiry of licence period. (Paras 1-10)
B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41(h) - Injunction Against Revocation of Licence - Where a licence is revocable at the will of the grantor, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain revocation. The Appellants failed to make out a prima facie case for continuance of licence beyond the agreed term. (Paras 11-15)
C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Municipal Corporation, which seeks to make the Gymnasium Centres available to the public at large. The Appellants' claim of irreparable loss is not made out as they have no legal right to continue in possession. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from revoking the allotment of Gymnasium Centres and from dispossessing them, in the absence of a subsisting licence and in view of the expiry of the licence period.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The orders dated 04.10.2023 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing Notice of Motion Nos. 3372 of 2023 and 3373 of 2023 are confirmed. Interim Applications do not survive and are disposed of.
Law Points
- Licence
- Revocation of licence
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Caretaker agreement
- Licence vs Lease
- Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 6 Specific Relief Act
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (11) 36
Appeal from Order No.851 of 2023 with Interim Application No.16281 of 2023 and Appeal from Order No.852 of 2023 with Interim Application No.16283 of 2023
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/by Mr. Dilip Shukla for Appellants; Mr. Anil Singh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Aadarsh Vyas, Ms. Preeti Gokhale i/by Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar for MCGM
Samantawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation and Mumbaikar Peace and Welfare Society
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals challenging dismissal of notice of motion for temporary injunction to restrain Municipal Corporation from revoking allotment of Gymnasium Centres and from dispossessing the Appellants.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought temporary injunction restraining MCGM from implementing revocation letters dated 13 July 2023 and from dispossessing them from the suit premises.
Filing Reason
MCGM issued revocation letters asking Appellants to vacate Gymnasium Centres after expiry of licence period.
Previous Decisions
City Civil Court dismissed Notice of Motion Nos. 3372 of 2023 and 3373 of 2023 refusing temporary injunction.
Issues
Whether the Appellants have a prima facie case for continuance of licence beyond the agreed term?
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Appellants or the Municipal Corporation?
Whether the Appellants would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they have been in possession for over a decade and have invested in the premises, and that the revocation is arbitrary.
MCGM argued that the licences have expired by efflux of time and are revocable at will, and that the Appellants have no legal right to continue in possession.
Ratio Decidendi
A licence granted for a fixed period expires by efflux of time and the licensee has no right to continue in possession after expiry. Such a licence is revocable at the will of the grantor, and no injunction can be granted to restrain revocation under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss.
Judgment Excerpts
The Municipal Corporation decided to make available the said two Gymnasium Centres to the members of public.
The Appellants have no right to continue in possession after expiry of licence period.
Where a licence is revocable at the will of the grantor, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain revocation.
Procedural History
The Appellants filed suits in City Civil Court seeking injunction. The City Civil Court dismissed their Notice of Motion on 04.10.2023. The Appellants filed appeals before the High Court on 09.11.2023, which were dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 41(h)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
