Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.S. Subramani
St. Isables Hospital rep. by its Administrator
Versus
A.V. Murugan
C.R.P. No. 3770 of 1999 and C.M.P. Nos. 21203 and 21204 of 1999
Decided On : 24-12-1999
LEASE OR LICENCE - PARKING LOT - INTERPRETATION OF ARRANGEMENT - NO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - NO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - HELD TO BE LICENCE - INJUNCTION VACATED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff entered into an arrangement with the defendant hospital to collect parking fees from two-wheelers coming to the hospital for a monthly payment. The arrangement was renewed with an increased monthly payment and continued for several years. Plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the parking lot, claiming that the arrangement was a lease and he was entitled to exclusive possession. The trial court initially granted an injunction but later vacated it after considering the defendant's counter-affidavit. The plaintiff appealed, and the lower appellate court restored the injunction, directing the trial court to dispose of the suit within a time frame.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the arrangement between the parties was only a licence and not a lease. It found that no portion of the immovable property belonging to the hospital was given to the plaintiff for his enjoyment and that he was not in exclusive possession of the parking lot. The court also noted that the document evidencing the arrangement did not contain any description of the property and was not properly stamped.
Issues: 1. Whether the arrangement between the parties was a lease or a licence? 2. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case for grant of injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To determine whether an arrangement is a lease or a licence, the court must consider whether there is an intention to transfer an interest in immovable property and whether the transferee is given exclusive possession. In this case, the court found that there was no intention to transfer any interest in the property and that the plaintiff was not given exclusive possession. Therefore, the court held that the arrangement was a licence. 2. For grant of injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he has a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case since the document evidencing the arrangement did not show that he had any right over the immovable property or exclusive possession of the same.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The order of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the order of the trial court vacating the injunction was restored. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
1. Defendant in O.S.No.7746 of 1998 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.
2. Defendant is St. Isables Hospital and it entered into an arrangement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff was permitted to collect parking fee from the two-wheelers coming to the hospital for which he has to pay Rs. 1,000 per month on the first day of every month. According to plaintiff, the said arrangement is a lease and defendant is not entitled to dispossess plaintiff except in accordance with law. It is said that after the arrangement the monthly payment was enhanced to Rs. 1,500 from 1994 onwards and the same arrangement continues till date. According to him, he employed four persons to look after parking arrangements inside the hospital premises.
3. Reason for filing the suit was that an alleged demand was made by defendant enhancing the amount from Rs. 12,000 per annum to Rs.1.00 lakh per annum, which the plaintiff did not oblige and consequently, defendant threatened to dispossess him. Suit was therefore laid for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of parking lot in St. Isables Hospital premises at No. 18 Oliver Road, Mylapore, Madras, except in accordance with law, and for consequential reliefs.
4. Scheduled property is described thus.
Parking lot in St. Isables Hospital at premises No. 18, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Madras 600 004 situated within the Registration Sub district of Mylapore and Registration District of Madras south."
5. Along with the suit, plaintiff also moved an application for injunction as I.A.No.18475 of 1998. Relief sought for in the suit and injunction application are same. Trial Court granted ad interim injunction initially. But after count affidavit was filed by defendant, the same was vacated.
6. In the counter affidavit of petitioner it is said that the arrangement between plaintiff and defendant is only that of licence and no lease is created. The right is only to collect parking fee from the two wheelers and there is no interest in immovable property is created. It is bare privilege. The allegation that there is a demand for enhancement of fee is also denied. It is said that there had been several complaints against plaintiff and one of the main complaint was that he is exlracting huge amounts from the visitors than permitted, and he is extorting money from innocent visitors. When no interest is created in the property, there cannot be any question of injunction.
7. As I said earlier, after counter affidavit was filed, trial court heard the injunction application in detail and as per order dated 2. 1999 vacated the interim order. Trial Court held that the arrangement between plaintiff and petitioner is only that of licensor and licensee and consequently no right or interest in immovable property.
8. The matter was taken in appeal by plaintiff in C.M.A.No.32 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional City Civil Court, Madras. Lower appellate court after extracting the contentions held that the question whether lease or licence can be decided only in the suit and till then status-quo will have to be maintained and granted injunction. It is also directed lower court to dispose of the suit within a time frame. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by defendant.
9. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself.
10. Before going into the rival contentions, it is better to extract the arrangement between the parties, which read thus,
" This agreement entered into at Madras this the 3rd day of June, 93 (3rd June, 1993) between the Administrator of St. Isabel Hospital, 18, Oliver Road, Madras -4, hereinafter called the party of the First Part and by Mr. M.U.Murugan having its branch office at No.27, Kanda Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30, hereafter called the Second Party of the Second part.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
