Revocable licence and statutory eviction principles governed airport restaurant occupation after expiry; oral assurance and discrimination claims failed.

A contractual licence for an airport restaurant was held to remain governed by its written terms and the statutory eviction regime under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The licence did not create any right or interest in the premises, and an alleged oral assurance could not convert it into an irrevocable licence or override the prescribed contractual mode of execution. The Estate Officer's proceedings were found fair and within authority, because no written extension existed and the officer was validly appointed by designation under the Act. Claims of discrimination and further extension also failed, as there was no underlying legal entitlement beyond the expired licence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the licence granted for the airport restaurant could be treated as irrevocable on the basis of the agreement or an alleged oral assurance, and whether the respondent could resile from its earlier stand abandoning the plea of irrevocability. (ii) Whether the Estate Officer's order suffered from violation of natural justice or lack of authority, including the validity of the appointment of the Estate Officer. (iii) Whether the plea of discrimination or entitlement to extension of licence was made out.

Issue (i): Whether the licence granted for the airport restaurant could be treated as irrevocable on the basis of the agreement or an alleged oral assurance, and whether the respondent could resile from its earlier stand abandoning the plea of irrevocability.

Analysis: The licence deed fixed a definite term, preserved the licensor's control over possession on expiry, and expressly stated that no right or interest in the premises was created. The agreement also attracted the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, showing that occupation after expiry would be governed by the statutory eviction regime. In addition, the alleged oral assurance could not bind a statutory corporation where contracts were required to be executed in the prescribed statutory manner. The respondent had earlier given up the plea of irrevocable licence before the High Court and obtained revival of the suit on that basis; having taken and benefited from that position, it could not later assert the opposite stance.

Conclusion: The licence was revocable, the plea of irrevocable licence failed, and the respondent was bound by its earlier election.

Issue (ii): Whether the Estate Officer's order suffered from violation of natural justice or lack of authority, including the validity of the appointment of the Estate Officer.

Analysis: The Estate Officer proceeded on the written licence terms and the statutory scheme under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Refusal to summon officers to prove an alleged oral extension did not amount to denial of fair hearing because no written extension existed and oral assurance could not override the documentary record. The request to widen the enquiry into collateral matters was also rightly declined. As to authority, the Central Government had issued notifications under the Act appointing Estate Officers by designation, and the subsequent notification substituted the relevant designation of Deputy General Manager (Land Management). The officer who decided the matter answered that designation and was therefore validly empowered.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was made out, and the Estate Officer was validly appointed and competent to decide the proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea of discrimination or entitlement to extension of licence was made out.

Analysis: The respondent's own case showed that the licence had already been extended twice, and there was no legal right to further extension. A discrimination claim cannot succeed in the absence of an underlying legal entitlement, and negative equality is not available to compel continuation of a licence contrary to the governing contract and statute.

Conclusion: The plea of discrimination and the claim to further extension were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The respondent's occupation after expiry of the licence was unauthorized, the statutory eviction order was sustainable, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. The appeals succeeded and the transferred challenge to the Estate Officer's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual licence governed by its written terms and the applicable statutory framework cannot be converted into an irrevocable interest by oral assurance, and a litigant who has obtained relief by abandoning one stand is bound by that election and cannot later approbate and reprobate.

---