SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 506

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Debjani Ghoshal

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.

Headnote:(A) The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 5(1) - Eviction Order - The Appellate Court set aside the Estate Officer's order restoring possession to the Private Respondent, asserting that no valid license existed after the original licensee’s death. The Court emphasized that possession could not create rights without an agreement. (Paras 32-42)

(B) License - Definition and Transferability - The Court ruled that a license is a personal right that is not transferable or heritable upon the death of the licensee. (Paras 41-42)

(C) Judicial Authority - The authority of the courts to interfere with eviction proceedings was limited, reaffirming the rights of the licensor to determine license renewals and evictions. (Paras 48-49)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose post the death of the original licensee regarding the license of a South Indian Stall at Purulia Railway Station. The license was not renewed after the original licensee’s death, leading to a series of litigations by the Private Respondent challenging eviction orders. (Paras 4-6, 10-11)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners correctly followed eviction procedures as the Private Respondent had no valid license post-2005; thus, her eviction was lawful. (Paras 30-32)

Issues: The core issues included the validity of the transfer of the license, the status of the Private Respondent post-eviction, and the proper authority’s decision over land use. (Paras 24, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a current license invalidated the Private Respondent's claims, emphasizing the distinction between licensees and tenants and their respective rights post-termination of agreements. (Paras 39-40, 51)

Result: The alternative judgment by the Appellate Court was set aside, restoring the Estate Officer's order of eviction.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top