Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Skygourmet Catering Private Limited and WAH Restaurants Private Limited (formerly Mars Restaurants Private Limited), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench refusing to grant interim relief in an eviction suit. The petitioners were licensees of the respondents, Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited and Mars Enterprises, in respect of certain premises. The respondents terminated the license and sought to evict the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 seeking interim relief to restrain the respondents from evicting them. The trial court and the appellate bench refused to grant interim relief, holding that the petitioners were licensees and not tenants, and therefore not entitled to protection under the Rent Control Act. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the orders of the courts below. The Court held that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and the license had been validly terminated. The Court further held that a licensee cannot claim the protection of the Rent Control Act after termination of the license. The Court also held that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and the Court cannot interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or suffers from an error of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Licensee - Protection under Rent Control Act - Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The petitioners were licensees of the respondents and their license was terminated. They sought interim relief to restrain the respondents from evicting them. The Court held that a licensee whose license has been validly terminated cannot claim the protection of the Rent Control Act, as the Act applies only to tenants and not to licensees. The Court further held that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and not landlord and tenant. (Paras 3-10) B) Interim Relief - Discretion of Court - Refusal of Interim Relief - The Courts below refused to grant interim relief to the petitioners. The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, declined to interfere with the discretionary order, as the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. (Paras 11-15) C) Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court held that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and the Court cannot interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or suffers from an error of jurisdiction. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were licensees, are entitled to interim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 after termination of their license?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench refusing to grant interim relief. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Licensee cannot claim protection of rent control legislation after termination of license
- Interim relief cannot be granted to a licensee whose license has been validly terminated
- Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 does not apply to licensees
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not confer unlimited jurisdiction to interfere with discretionary orders
