The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of a licensee are distinct from those of a lessee, and the limitations of a licensee's rights under the agreement were emphasized. The court also clarified that the suit brought by the respondent licensee was not maintainable under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974.

M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition by the petitioners, the Divisional Controller and the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation), is directed against the judgement and order dated 23-2-1987 made by the Civil Judge, Haveri, in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 1985 by which he reversed the order dated 13-8-1985 made by the Munsiff, Haveri, in O. S. No. 42 of 1985, rejecting the application (I. A. No. I) for temporary injunction.

( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows :- it is not in dispute that the immovable property adjoining the K. S. R. T. C. , bus stand at Haveri constructed for the purpose of running a canteen intending to cater to the needs of the travelling public is the property belonging to the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent, a licence came to be issued in favour of the respondent to run catering business (refreshment room) at the premises in question. That agreement is dated 1-9-1981, with conditions 1 to 28 incorporated therein. One of the conditions is that the licensee, respondent herein, shall pay certain sum of money, per mensem, apart from security deposit, as long as the licence is in force, which is for a period of four years from 1-9-1981. It is stated that even earlier to this, the respondent was running the canteen in the said premises from 1972 onwards on the strength of the licence which came to be renewed under the fresh agreement entered into in 1981 as aforesaid. It is stated that in 1972, the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 1,885/-, besides the security deposit being Rs. 5,655/ -. That came to be enhanced to Rs. 2,102/- being the rent and Rs. 25,225- /being deposit. In 1981 the rental value of the premises was fixed at Rs. 3,083/- and the deposit at Rs. 37,000/ -. It is stated that after the expiry of the period of licence, the Corporation issued a notice on 28-5-1985 to the respondent asking him to vacate the premises by 31-8-1985, the date on which the period of licence expired, failing which all the belongings of the respondent would be removed from the premises in which even the Corporation would not be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom. Aggrieved by the said notice, the respondent filed a suit in O. S. No. 42 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff at Haveri for a declaration that he was the tenant of the premises in question and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the Corporation from evicting him from the suit premises. Along with the suit, he also filed an application (I. A. No. I) under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. , for an ad interim order of temporary injunction against the Corporation pending disposal of the suit. The learned Munsiff having heard learned counsel on both sides on the application (I. A. No. I), by his order dated 13-8-1985, dismissed the application. The respondent having been aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 1985 on the file of the Civil Judge, Haveri, who, having heard learned counsel on both sides, allowed the appeal, reversed the order made by the learned Munsiff and granted relief as prayed for in I. A. No. I. Hence this petition by the Corporation.

( 3 ) I heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the orders made by the Courts below.

( 4 ) SRI Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, petitioners herein, mainly argued that the order of the Appellate Authority was illegal and was unsustainable, inasmuch as, according to him, the learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate the contention urged before him that the suit premises being governed by the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (Karnataka Act No. 32 of 1974) (the Act for short), the suit as brought was not maintainable. He argued that the learned Munsiff was right in dismissing I. A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document