Court retained jurisdiction to assess unlawful dispossession claims despite expiration of license period, reaffirming the principle of protection against illegal eviction.

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 License Agreement itself expired on 20th March, 2023. It is submitted that if this Court were to give a direction to restore possession of the Plaintiff in the suit premises, it would amou