IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
The Estate Officer Adra South Eastern Railway & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Murgeswari Teoyar Alias Laxmi Teoyar – Respondent
CO 4037 of 2024
Decided On : 18-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to an eviction order (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. license agreement details and disputes (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. eviction process initiated by the petitioner (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. petitioner’s arguments against restoration (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. observations on eviction legality (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. court's findings in appeal (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. definitions of lease and license (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. impact of licensee's death on rights (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. public premises licensing procedures (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. rights of the licensor and licensee relations (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 11. enforcement of correct legal principles (Para 52) |
| 12. final order and directives (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The writ application has been preferred against an order dated 15th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court Purulia in Appeal no. 20 of 2016.
2. Vide the order under challenge the learned Additional District Judge, in appeal set aside the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Estate Officer, Adra Division, South Eastern Railway in connection with case no. E/L/244/PRR/2013.
3. The Court further directed the petitioners herein to restore the possession of the licensee in the said public premises within a specified period and hence the writ application.
4. The petitioners’ case is that C.S. Raju (since deceased), husband of the Private Respondent entered into an agreement with the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railways being Petitioner No.2 to run a South Indian Stall at the Purulia Railway Station on 24/1/2002 for the period from 13/04/2000 to 12/04/2005 at an annual license fee of Rs. 27320/-.
5. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railways vide No. a letter No. C-120/Catg/Policy/ADA/05 by a letter dated 11/4/2005 extended the contractual agreement with C.S. Raju (since deceased) for a further period of 6 months. The said Agreement came to an end on 12.10.2005. After 12/10/2005 the license was not renewed by the husband of the petitioner.
6. C.S. Raju expired on 31/1/2008 and this was informed to the Private Respondent authorities by the petitioner vide a letter dated 14/2/2008.
7. The petitioner by an application dated 14/2/2008 to the Group General Manager of Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. prayed for transfer of license of the South Indian Stall which was in the name of the petitioner’s husband to the petitioner’s name.
8. On 29/10/2010, the south Indian Stall was handed over to IRCTC of the Indian Railways on "as is where is basis, without any agreement, operating on payment of license fee revised from time to time.
9. The Private Respondent filed a writ petition being WPA No.9671 of 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court praying for transfer of license of the South Indian Stall in the name of the writ petitioner.
10. The Court vide an Order dated 17/5/2012 directed the Private Respondent to file an application before the petitioner authorities and directed that if such application is filed, the petitioner authorities shall dispose of the application by a speaking order.
11. The Divisional Railway Manager vide an Order dated 6/9/2012 rejected the Private Respondent’s prayer for transferring the license of South Indian Stall in the name of the Private Respondent as no extension was granted to Shri C.S. Raju (since deceased), the husband of the petitioner after 12/10/2005.
12. The Private Respondent filed a writ petition being WPA No. 21155 of 2012 challenging the Order dated 6/9/2012 in the Hon’ble High Court and the said writ petition was disposed of, vide an Order dated 13/12/2012, setting aside the Order dated 6/9/2012 and directing the railway authorities, more particularly petitioner No. 3 to re-consider the claim of the Petitioner for transfer of license with proper reasoned order.
13. The petitioner in compliance with the Order dated 13/12/2012
A license is a personal right that is not transferable or heritable, and expiry of the original licensee's rights extinguishes claims to possession without proper renewal.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
Section 4 of Public Premises Act has provided for issue of show cause notice against order of eviction.
The appeal upheld that expired leave and license agreements do not confer tenant rights; occupancy post-expiration was considered trespassing.
A licensee whose license has expired cannot claim protected tenant status under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, and tenants are estopped from questioning the landlord's title during eviction proc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.