A licensee whose license has been revoked does not have juridical possession and is not entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT-The petitioner, who is the sole proprietor of Radias Flotilla Club situated on the Chowpatty Foreshore at Marine Drive in Bombay, has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the orders and for decisions contained in the letters dated February 12, 1968, February 23, 1968 and July 16, 1968 whereby he has been called upon to vacate the land on which the said club stands and to remove all structures standing thereon, as well as for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and to withdraw and/or cancel the said impugned orders and for decisions. Though the petitioner has not used the word "licence" in the petition, it is amply clear from the averments that are to be found in paras. 4, 5 and 6 of the petition that his occupation of the land in question was permissive as for as the Collector of Bombay was concerned and constituted merely a licence to use the same. This legal character of the petitioner emerges not merely from the averments in the petition, but is stated in unequivocal terms in the correspondence relating to the grant in respect of the said land which has been annexed to the petition, and which shows beyond doubt that what the petitioner was granted was a licence, and that too, of a purely temporary nature. The mere fact that the Collector has, curiously enough, in the impugned letters used the words "tenancy" and "tenancy-at will" cannot make any difference to the true legal character of the petitioner which was that of a licensee. The Collector of Bombay (respondent No.2) has terminated that licence (wrongly called a tenancy therein) by his letter dated February 12, 1968 which is one of the documents impugned in this petition. As a matter of substantive law, therefore, the petitioner has no colour of right to remain in possession of the suit premises and has no answer to the respondents claim that he should vacate the land in question, and the present petition appears to have been filed merely for the purpose of gaining time and remaining in possession as long as possible. Once a Rule is issued on this petition, interim relief would ordinarily have to be granted if the petition is not to be rendered in fructuous, and that would enable the petitioner to continue in possession of the land in question perhaps for some years till the petition is heard and finally decided. As there are several cases in which petitions are filed by tenants or licensees and, in some cases, even by persons who are alleged to be trespassers ab initio, without a vestige of a right to remain in possession with the sole object of continuing in possession of the premises as long as possible, I fixed this matter and two other matters viz. Misc. Petitions Nos. 572 and 521 of 1969 on my Board for argument. I directed that notice before admission be given to the other side and the three matters have been fully argued before me by learned counsel for the parties concerned. It may be mentioned that Misc. Petition No. 572 of 1969 was a petition by an erstwhile tenant whose tenancy had been duly terminated and who was not protected by the Bombay Rent Act; Misc. Petition No. 521 of 1969 was filed by a licensee of the petitioner in the said Misc. Petition No. 572 of 1969; and the present petition was filed by a person who is a licensee of the Government which owns the land, as already stated above. I have already delivered judgment today in Misc. Petition No. 572 of 1969 which I have summarily dismissed for reasons stated in my Order, and Misc. Petition No. 521 of 1969 had to follow suit since the petitioner therein claimed through the petitioner in the former petition.

2. The same two questions that arose in Misc. Petition No. 572 of 1969 arise in the present case also viz. (1) whether the petitioner could be said to be a party aggrieved so as to entitle him to seek relief under Article 226 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document