Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2145
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J
Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sunita Dileep Nevatia & Anr. – Respondent
Civil Jurisdiction Interim Application (Lodging) No. 15445 of 2023 | Suit No. 409 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Narula
For the Respondents: Mr. Simil Purohit, Mr. Kalpesh Joshi, Ms. Nisha Shah
Expiry of license does not negate a court's jurisdiction to inquire into unlawful dispossession; only due process can address such claims.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Restoration of possession - Plaintiff claims he was forcibly dispossessed despite being in settled possession - Defendant argues suit should be dismissed as license period expired - Law prohibits extrajudicial dispossession - Court affirms jurisdiction to inquire into claims despite contract expiration. (Paras 11-12)
(B) Admissions in Pleadings - Indicating license period expired does not negate inquiry into unlawful dispossession - Court's inquiry is centered around actual dispossession rather than contractual rights. (Paras 4-8)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed suit under Sec. 6 for restoration of possession alleging forcible dispossession. The Defendants claim suit should be dismissed as license expired. The Plaintiff asserts ongoing possession and unlawful dispossession.
Findings of Court:
Court holds jurisdiction remains intact to investigate unlawful dispossession regardless of license expiration; permits inquiry into claims of settled possession.
Issues: Whether expiry of license affects Plaintiff's claim for restoration of possession and the ability of the Court to conduct the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Court clarifies the distinction between leases and licenses, emphasizing the prohibition against extrajudicial dispossession and affording rights to determine unlawful removal.
Result: Application dismissed; suit expedited for resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims forced dispossession under section 6. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant argues for dismissal based on license expiration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court maintains jurisdiction despite license conclusion. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court emphasizes urgency in resolution without favoring unlawful possession. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court references precedents supporting protection against extrajudicial dispossession. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
1. By this application, the Applicant (Defendant No. 2) is seeking judgment for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admissions.
This application has been filed in peculiar facts and circumstances. In order to understand the background in which the present application has been filed, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of the present case.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter refer to as the aforesaid Act) for restoration of possession of suit premises, which according to the Plaintiff, was forcibly and illegally taken from the Plaintiff by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has also sought ancillary reliefs, including interim reliefs, which were also separately pressed on the basis of Notice of Motion filed in the suit.
3. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has referred to and relied upon a Leave and License Agreement dated 07th October, 2017, whereby the Plaintiff was inducted as a licensee from 21st March, 2018 to 20th March, 2023, it being referred to as the license period. The Plaintiff was inducted as licensee for running a restaurant and bar in the suit premises. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it spent about Rs. 2.5 Crores in renovating the suit premises for the purposes of restaurant and bar and while it was in the process of completing the renovation work, it was wrongfully dispossessed, as the Defendants withheld the keys of the premises from the Plaintiff from 23rd October, 2018 onwards. The suit was admittedly filed within the period of limitation of six months and when the notice of motion for interim reliefs was pressed, an ad-interim order dated 15th November, 2019 was passed restraining the Defendants from creating third party rights in the suit property. The said ad-interim order has remained in operation.
4. Although the suit filed under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, is by its very nature is an urgent proceeding, which needs to be decided at the earliest possible, the record shows that the suit has remained pending. It is in this backdrop that the Defendant No. 2 has filed the present application. It is submitted that the pleadings in the plaint, which refer to and rely upon the Leave and License Agreement, show that the very period of the license itself expired on 20th March, 2023. The relevant portions of the pleadings and the contents of the Leave and License Agreement have been quoted in the application and on that basis, it is submitted that the said pleadings amount to admission about the period of the Leave and License Agreement having expired on 20th March, 2023. It is submitted that in these circumstances, once the Leave and License period itself is over, this Court exercising power under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act cannot possibly allow the suit for putting back the Plaintiff in possession. The prayers made in the present application are stoutly opposed and denied on behalf of the Plaintiff.
5. Mr. Simil Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant (Defendant No. 2) in the present application, relied upon the statements made in the plaint and the contents of the Leave and License Agreement, to vehemently contend that the present suit deserves to be dismissed on the basis of such admissions in the plaint itself. It is submitted that this Court in the present suit filed under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, can no longer consider the prayer of the Plaintiff to be put back in possession of the suit premises, for the simple reason that the Leave and
