(1) Can the inclusion of a particular period or term for the operation of an agreement for licence be treated as contracting out?

(2) In a case wherein a particular term or period is fixed in an agreement for licence, can it be said that the said licence will become irrevocable till the expiry of the said period?

(3) Can a demand by the licensor to the licensee to vacate the premises, which is the subject matter of the licence, be regarded as a revocation of the licence?

(4) In the case of a premature revocation, what, if any, are all the reliefs or remedies available to a licensee?

These are the questions of law to be answered in this appeal.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.235/09 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha, who is the respondent in A.S.No.78/2011 of the Additional District Court, Muvattupuzha, has come up in appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 passed by the lower appellate court.

2. The plaintiff, as licensee, had entered into Ext.A1 agreement for licence with the respondent herein as licensor on 18.08.2005 for a period of 10 years in respect of the licence to use the crusher unit of the licensor, named 'J.M.T Granites' for the production and manufacture of aggregates. A licence fee of Rs.16,000/- per month for the first 5 years and Rs. 18,000/- per month for the next 5 years was fixed through clause (4) of Ext.A1 agreement. As per clause (3) of Ext.A1 agreement, the licensee had requested the licensor the permission to use the said crusher unit of the licensor for a period of 10 years, and the licensor had permitted the said request. As per clause (6) of Ext.A1, apart from smashing rubbles for the manufacture of aggregates, the licensee had no right to do any other business or works by making use of the machinery or the premises. A security deposit of Rs.7 lakhs was made by the licensee and the same was entrusted to the licensor for the due performance of the licence agreement. As per clause (11) of Ext.A1, the licensor had permitted the licensee to put up necessary sheds in the property for the installation of crusher machinery. The licensee had agreed that on the expiry of the term of licence, the licensee would remove such machinery which would be installed by the licensee or such sheds which would be put up by the licensee, at the cost of the licensee. Clause (13) enables the licensor to terminate the licence at any time, on three months' notice to the licensee.

3. While matters were proceeding so, it seems that the relationship between the licensor and the licensee became strained. Even prior to the expiry of the term, the licensor had demanded the licensee to surrender vacant possession of the premises as well as the machinery. The licensee was not ready and willing to surrender possession of the crusher machinery or to surrender the subject matter of the licence prior to the expiry of the term. As the licensee had apprehended forcible eviction from the part of the licensor, the present suit as 0.S.No.235/09 was filed by the licensee as plaintiff before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha against the licensor seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction for protecting the possession of the licensee.

4. The licensor, who is the original respondent herein contended that the licence was terminated through a mutual agreement between the licensor and the licensee, and that the terms were reduced into writing as Ext.B2. According to the respondent, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was arrived at as damages payable to the licensee for such premature termination along with the amount of security of Rs. 7 lakhs, and the same were paid by the licensor to the licensee through two cheques issued for Rs. 9 lakhs. At the same time, it is nobody's case that any such amounts were withdrawn from the Bank by the licensee at any point of time. The trial court has decreed the suit and granted a decree of prohibitory injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the licensor preferred A.S.