Interim licence rights and vacant property use: restoration refused, but letting out permitted subject to protective conditions.

An evicted licensee was held not entitled at the interim stage to restoration of access or use of the first floor, because Section 64 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 confines relief to compensation and the plea of irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) was not prima facie made out. The court also treated the requested access as a mandatory interim injunction and declined it. On the property-use issue, the court allowed the defendant in control to let out the vacant premises during suit, subject to conditions preserving the subject matter, because keeping it unused risked deterioration and loss and the plaintiff's specific performance claim appeared weak.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim restoration of access and use of the first floor on the plea of licence and settled possession; (ii) whether the defendant no. 2 should be restrained from letting out the property during pendency of the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim restoration of access and use of the first floor on the plea of licence and settled possession.

Analysis: The plaintiff's claim was examined on the footing of a licence. Section 64 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 was treated as confining an evicted licensee to compensation against the grantor and not restoration of occupation. The plea that the licence had become irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 was rejected on a prima facie view, since the pleaded alterations were not shown to be works of a permanent character. The Court also held that deprivation of access had, in the circumstances, amounted to dispossession for purposes of a licence, and that the request for access would in substance amount to a mandatory interim injunction restoring use of the premises.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim restoration of access or use of the first floor.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant no. 2 should be restrained from letting out the property during pendency of the suit.

Analysis: The Court found that the defendant no. 2 was in control of the property and that keeping the premises unused during the suit would cause avoidable deterioration and pecuniary loss. The plaintiff's prima facie claim for specific performance was found weak, as the document relied upon did not constitute an enforceable agreement on its face. In those circumstances, permitting commercial use of the vacant property, while safeguarding the subject matter of the suit by conditions regarding duration, court approval of the lease, and subjecting the tenancy to the result of the suit, was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The defendant no. 2 was permitted to let out the entire property on the conditions imposed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The interim relief sought by the plaintiff was declined, and the property was allowed to be put to use pending trial under protective conditions preserving the rights of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: An evicted licensee is not entitled at the interim stage to restoration of occupation merely on the basis of licence rights, and the court may permit use of a vacant property during pendency of the suit where adequate safeguards preserve the eventual rights of the parties.

---