Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Wework India Management Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3 January 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 40 of 2021. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's order rejecting the application for interim relief and granted ad-interim relief in favour of the respondent, M/s. KGA Investments. The dispute arose out of a Leave and License Agreement dated 17 May 2019 and a Deed of Rectification dated 30 September 2019 between the parties. The petitioner (licensee) sought specific performance of the agreement and an injunction restraining the respondent (licensor) from terminating the license and dispossessing the petitioner. The trial court had rejected the interim application, but the appellate court reversed that decision. The High Court examined the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It held that the licensee had made out a strong prima facie case as the agreement was valid and subsisting, and the licensor's attempt to terminate the license was not in accordance with the terms. The court also found that the license was coupled with an interest and was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The balance of convenience was in favour of the licensee, as the licensor would not suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was granted, whereas the licensee would suffer substantial loss if dispossessed. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's order rejecting the interim relief. However, the court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose it of within a period of one year.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the licensee had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining the licensor from terminating the leave and license agreement and from dispossessing the licensee - Held that the licensee had a strong prima facie case based on the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties (Paras 10-25). B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Leave and License Agreement - The court considered whether a leave and license agreement can be specifically enforced - Held that while a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, a leave and license agreement creating a right to use property can be enforced by way of injunction (Paras 26-30). C) Property Law - License - Irrevocable License - The court examined whether the license granted under the agreement was revocable or irrevocable - Held that the license was coupled with an interest and was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Paras 31-35). D) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - The court assessed the balance of convenience between the parties - Held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the licensee as the licensor would not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction was granted, whereas the licensee would suffer substantial loss if dispossessed (Paras 36-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order rejecting the application for interim relief and granting ad-interim relief in favour of the licensor.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order dated 3 January 2022, and restored the trial court's order rejecting the interim relief. The court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit within one year.
Law Points
- Specific performance of leave and license agreement
- interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
