Supreme Court rules license agreement revocable, upholds eviction under Public Premises Act. Appeal dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the license agreement was revocable as per its terms, rejecting the claim of irrevocability. It dismissed the oral extension claim due to lack of evidence. The Court upheld the eviction process under the Public Premises Act, finding no due process violations. The appointment of the Estate Officer was deemed valid. The discrimination claim under Article 14 was rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the respondent. Appeals by the Airport Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport were allowed, with interim orders vacated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Irrevocability of the Licence Agreement.
2. Oral Extension of Licence.
3. Jurisdiction and Due Process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
4. Validity of the Estate Officer's Appointment.
5. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Irrevocability of the Licence Agreement:
The contesting respondent argued that the licence was irrevocable based on the Licence Agreement and an alleged oral assurance. However, the Supreme Court found that the licence was explicitly revocable as per the terms of the Licence Agreement, which was valid for a period of three years from 27.11.95 to 26.11.98. The Court emphasized that a licence does not create any estate or interest in the property and is typically revocable unless expressly stated otherwise in the contract or under specific provisions of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. The Court also noted that the contesting respondent had previously abandoned the claim of irrevocability before the Bombay High Court to revive its suit, thereby estopping it from reasserting the same claim.

2. Oral Extension of Licence:
The contesting respondent claimed an oral extension of the licence, relying on substantial investments made in constructing the restaurant. The Supreme Court dismissed this claim, stating that no oral assurance of extension was contemplated or proved. The Court highlighted that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a statutory body governed by the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, and its contracts must comply with statutory requirements, including being sealed with the common seal of AAI. Any oral assurance, even if given, would not bind the AAI legally.

3. Jurisdiction and Due Process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:
The contesting respondent argued that the eviction process did not follow due process under the 1971 Act. Initially, the Bombay City Civil Court decreed that AAI must follow the due process of law for eviction. The Estate Officer issued notices and conducted hearings, ultimately declaring the contesting respondent in unauthorized occupation. The Supreme Court upheld the Estate Officer's decision, noting that the contesting respondent had no legal right to continue occupying the premises after the licence expired on 26.5.2000. The Court also found no merit in the claim that the Estate Officer failed to observe natural justice, as the evidence of oral extension was not legally significant.

4. Validity of the Estate Officer's Appointment:
The contesting respondent challenged the authority of Mr. K.K. Gupta to act as the Estate Officer. The Supreme Court confirmed that Mr. Gupta was validly appointed under a notification by the Central Government, which substituted the designation 'Deputy General Manager (Land Management)' for 'Airport Director.' The Court found no substance in the challenge to Mr. Gupta's authority, as he was promoted and appointed to the relevant position, fulfilling the statutory requirements.

5. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14:
The contesting respondent alleged discrimination, claiming that other licensees received extensions while it did not. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, stating that the contesting respondent had no legal right to an extension. The Court emphasized that a plea of discrimination can only be raised in aid of a right, which the contesting respondent did not possess. The Court also noted that administrative reasons might justify different treatment of other licensees, but this did not constitute valid discrimination under Article 14.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the contesting respondent, noting its inconsistent pleas and prolonged litigation. The Court upheld the eviction order of the Estate Officer and imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the contesting respondent, payable to the Supreme Court Mediation Center. The civil appeals filed by the Airport Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport were allowed, and all interim orders were vacated.

---