Manmohan Sarin, J. :

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed I. A. No. 1526/96 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking inter alia to restrain the defendant from forcibly dispossessing him from the Travel Requisition Shop at the departure terminal, which the plaintiff claims to have been running since 1946. Further stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 23-1-1996 and communication dated 29-1-1996 of the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the Travel Requisition Shop immediately and calling upon him to remove his articles from the shop. I. A. 1531/96 has been filed seeking descaling of the shop which has been done by the defendant.

( 2 ) THESE applications have been filed in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, seeking declaration that the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the Travel Requisition Shop, (T. R Shop) except with due process of Law and compliance of provisions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. Permanent injunction is sought against the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering with his peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the shop.

( 3 ) THE present suit is the third attempt by the plaintiff to continue his unauthorized occupation after the licence granted for running the T. R shop bad expired with a efflux of time.

( 4 ) LET me briefly recapitulate the relevant facts-

(I) The plaintiff had been granted a three year licence on 26-2-1991 for running the T. R. Shop. The defendant had invited tenders prior to expiry of the licence term for fresh allotment. The bid of the plaintiff and others were considered. It turned out that the plaintiff was not the highest bidder. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit for perpetual injunction bearing No. 1690/94 inter alia claiming an injunction against the defendant from taking possession of the T. R. Shop or entering into. any other agreement with any person except the plaintiff. The plaintiff assailed the consideration of the bid of M/s. Popular Chemists, whose bid was the highest on the ground that they did not fulfil the eligibility qualifications for participating in the tender.

(II) The plaintiff s case was that he had been running the T. R. shop since 1948 and the licence was renewed from time to time upon the plaintiff agreeing to pay the higher rent as determined by the defendant.

(III) During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff on the basis of a letter dated 7-7-1994 issued by the Chairman of defendant, claimed that the defendant had offered to extend the period of licence upon payment of licence fee @ Rs. 1,51,000. 00 per month. This was in response to plaintiff s letter of 26-4-1994, volunteering to pay licence fee of Rs. 1,51,000. 00 per month.

VIDE interim orders passed on 22-2- 1995, the plaintiff was directed to clear the arrears and subject to rights and contentions of the parties, to pay the licence fee at Rs. 42,590. 00 per month.

(IV) The pleadings in the suit were completed Vide a detailed order dated 23-1-1996, the application of the plaintiff for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking a restraint on the defendant s letter of 19-7-1994, calling upon the plaintiff to handover the vacant possession of the T. R. shop, which had been allotted to M/s. Popular Chemists, was dismissed.

THE said order considered the numerous pleas raised by the plaintiff, namely the challenge to the award of the licence to M/s. Popular Chemists, who had given the highest bid of licence fee of Rs. 1,70,000. 00. Admittedly the allotment ]of the T. R. Shop to the plaintiff was in the nature of a licence which had expired. The plaintiff s challenge to the allotment of the shop to M/s. Popular Chemists, who were the highest bidder on the ground that the said party did not fulfil the eligibilty condition was also turned down. The Learned Single Judge held that after the expiry of the period of licence, the plaintiff was bound to surrender possession and did not have any vested righ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document