Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 7459
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MAHIPAL SINGH AND 6 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S AGNI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
SAPL/402/2022
A licensee has no right to occupy the property after his license has been revoked.
Headnote:
LICENSEE - POSSESSION - REVOCATION - [The plaintiff, a private limited company, brought a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant, who was a former employee of the company and had been given a license to occupy the suit property during his employment. The defendant refused to vacate the property after his employment ended, claiming ownership. The court held that the defendant was a licensee and that his license had been revoked, entitling the plaintiff to possession and mesne profits.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, M/s. Agni Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., brought a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant, Mahipal Singh, who was a former employee of the company. The defendant had been given a license to occupy the suit property during his employment, but he refused to vacate the property after his employment ended. The defendant claimed ownership of the property, but the plaintiff denied this claim and asserted that the defendant was merely a licensee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant was a licensee and that his license had been revoked. The court found that the plaintiff had proved its title to the property and that the defendant had no right to occupy it. The court also found that the defendant had been given notice to vacate the property but had refused to do so.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?2. Whether the defendant is in wrongful occupation of the suit property for the past 3 years, entitling the plaintiff to recover Rs.36,000/- as mesne profits?3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1000/- per month as mesne profits?4. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court-fee paid insufficient?5. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC?6. Whether the plaintiff has no right to sue?7. Whether the suit is barred by time?8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision:* A licensee has no right to occupy the property after his license has been revoked.* The plaintiff had proved its title to the property and the defendant had no right to occupy it.* The defendant had been given notice to vacate the property but had refused to do so.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to vacate the suit property and pay mesne profits.
1
Court No. - 6
Reserved
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 402 of 2022
Appellant :- Mahipal Singh And 6 Others
Respondent :- M/S Agni Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Shyam Lal, Advocate
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This second appeal by the defendant arises out of a
decree passed by both the Courts below decreeing a suit for
possession and mesne profits.
2.
Heard Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned Counsel for
the defendant-appellants (for short, 'the defendant') in support
of the motion under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, and Mr. Shyam Lal, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the sole plaintiff-respondent (for short,
'plaintiff').
3.
Original Suit No. 524 of 2005 was instituted by the
plaintiff, M/s. Agni Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Swaley Nagar,
Nawadiya through its Managing Director, Mahesh Agnihotri
against Mahipal Singh son of Trilok Singh, seeking a decree for
possession and mesne profits relating to the house, described
at the foot of the plaint with reference to its boundaries. The
said house is also shown in the plaint map in red colour. The
said house will be called 'the suit property'.
4.
It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant was a
Chowkidar with the plaintiff up to 31.03.2001. During this period
of time, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a tin-shed
worked house in order to facilitate the defendant in the
discharge of his duties. Thus, the defendant holds the suit
property as a licensee. Before the defendant was licensed the
2
suit property, his father Trilok Singh was in the plaintiff's employ.
He too had been given the suit property on a license as part of
his service facility. After the defendant's father passed away, the
suit property was given to the defendant on a mere licence
during the period of his service. On 31.03.2001, the defendant
left the Company's service. However, he did not vacate the suit
property.
5.
It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant ought to have
handed over possession of the licensed property, because it
was with him as part of his terms and conditions of service. The
defendant was asked repeatedly to deliver up possession of the
suit property, but he did not. The defendant turned dishonest
and wants to usurp the suit property. He reared a number of
cattle heads utilizing the suit property, and started off a venture
in the supply of milk. Whenever the plaintiff would ask of the
defendant to vacate the suit property, the defendant and his
relatives would turn belligerent.
6.
In order to usurp the suit property, the defendant claimed
it to be his own and instituted O.S. No. 313 of 2002 against
Mahesh Agnihotri, the Managing Director of the plaintiff,
seeking a permanent injunction restraining Mahesh Agnihotri
from interfering with the defendant's possession over the suit
property. O.S. No. 313 of 2002, after trial, was decreed for the
relief that the plaintiff in that suit, that is to say, the defendant
here, shall not be dispossessed, except in accordance with law.
The suit property was adjudged to be the plaintiff's property
and, therefore, relief to the defendant was not given in that suit
on the basis of his title; his possession alone was protected
against an act of forcible dispossession. The plaintiff,
accordingly, caused a notice dated 24.05.2005 to be served
3
through registered post upon the defendant, terminating his
license. The defendant still did not vacate.
7.
It is in these circumstances that the present suit for
possession has been brought against the defendant after
revocation of his license and also for recovery of mesne profits
to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- claimed for period of three years,
besides mesne profits pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per
month.
8.
The defendant contested the suit and filed a written
statement denying the plaint allegations.
