VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner impugns a notice dated 10.04.2014 (hereafter ‘impugned notice’) issued by the respondent (hereafter ‘AAI’) terminating the licenses granted to the petitioner for operation of snack bar counters in the Security Hold Area (East and West Wing) of the New Domestic Terminal at Chennai Airport. By the impugned notice, the petitioner has been called upon to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the snack bars being operated by the petitioner under license from AAI.

2. The petitioner contended that its licenses for running snack bar counters at the New Domestic Terminal at Chennai Airport, were for a fixed term expiring on 18.12.2016 and, therefore, could not be revoked or terminated prior to the expiry of the fixed term. The petitioner contended that in terms of the initial agreement, AAI was entitled to terminate the license by giving 180 days notice. However, the said agreement was novated and, by a letter dated 28.01.2013, AAI stipulated new terms which did not reserve AAI a right to terminate the license prior to its expiry on 18.12.2016.

3. It was contended on behalf of AAI that the license granted to the petitioner was “co-terminus” with the original license executed on 05.07.2007 and since AAI retained the right to terminate the said license by giving 180 day notice, the impugned notice could not be assailed.

4. It was further submitted that even if the pre-mature termination of the license was contrary to the terms of the agreement, by virtue of Section 64 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 (hereafter the 'Act'), the injunction as prayed for cannot be granted. The learned counsel for AAI has referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gesture Hotels and Food Pvt. Limited v. The New Delhi Municipal Council: 210 (2014) DLT 359 in support of its contention.

5. I have reservations as to AAI’s contention that even though a license may be for a definite period, an injunction restraining licensor from evicting the licensee, in breach of the agreement, prior to the expiry of said period, cannot be granted.

6. Section 52 of the Act defines a ‘license’ and reads as under:-

“52. "License" defined. -Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.”

7. Section 60 of the Act provides that a license may be revoked by a grantor and reads as under:-

“60. License when revocable.-A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless-

(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force;

(b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution.”

By virtue of section 60 of the Act, a license is by its nature revocable unless the conditions as specified under Section 60 of the Act are met.

8. Section 63 of the Act provides that a licensee is entitled to a reasonable time to leave the property affected thereby and remove the goods. Section 64 of the Act provides for the remedy to a licensee who has been evicted without any fault on his part. Section 63 and 64 of the Act read as under:

"63. Licensee's rights on revocation.-Where a license is revoked, the licensee is entitled to a reasonable time to leave the property affected thereby and to remove any goods which he has been allowed to place on such property.

64. Licensee's rights on eviction.-Where a license has been granted for a consideration, and the licensee, without any fault of his own, is evicted by the grantor before he has fully enjoyed, under the license, the right for which he contracted, he is entitled to recover compensation from the grantor."

9. It is apparent from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, that a licensee cannot resist eviction i