JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The present suit [CS(OS) 226/2019] has reached the stage of final disposal. Mr. Ashish Khanna and Mr. Neeraj Khanna [collectively, “the Licensors”] have instituted the present suit against Roshni Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [“Roshni Hotels”]. Concurrently, Roshni Hotels has filed a parallel suit, bearing case number CS(OS) 607/2021, against the Licensors. There is a substantial overlap in the subject matter of both suits. Therefore, while this judgment will specifically address and dispose of CS(OS) 226/2019, it is pertinent to acknowledge the common elements in the two suits in order to understand the context and implications of the decision reached herein.

2. The focal point of both suits [CS(OS) 226/2019 and CS(OS) 607/2021] is a specific parcel of land encompassing an area measuring 12 Bighas and 16 Biswas, located in the revenue estate of Village Kapashera, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is delineated in Khata Khatauni No. 49/421 and identified by Mustatil Nos. 14, 16, and 17, along with Killa Nos. 26 (5-4), 26 (3-4), and 26 (4-8) respectively. The Suit Property includes not only the land itself but also a boundary wall, a tube well, an electric connection, and a built-up super-structure. Additionally, it encompasses all trees, shrubs, standing crops, and other installations existing therein [hereinafter, “Suit Property”].

THE FACTUAL BACKDROP AND CRUCIAL PROCEEDINGS THUS FAR

3. By way of a registered licence deed dated 29th August, 2017 [“Licence Deed”], the Licensors granted a licence in respect of the Suit Property to Roshni Hotels. In terms thereof, Roshni Hotels was allowed temporary use of the Suit Property in consideration of payment of a monthly licence fee to the Licensors. Thereafter, on 12th November, 2018, the Licensors terminated this Licence Deed, citing non-payment of the licence fee as the primary reason. Subsequently, the Licensors filed the instant suit seeking recovery of possession, arrears of the licence fee, mesne profits/damages, and a permanent injunction against Roshni Hotels.

4. Roshni Hotels was duly served with summons of the suit, however, they failed to file a written statement, leading to the striking off of their defence. Nonetheless, the Licensors proceeded to prove their case through evidence. They led oral evidence, but their witnesses were not cross- examined by Roshni Hotels. Predictably, in absence of any defence, Roshni Hotels did not lead evidence, which implies absence of a defendable position on their part. Consequently, the instant suit has now advanced to the final stage of adjudication.

5. In the meantime, the cross-suit [CS(OS) 607/2021] was initiated by Roshni Hotels, pertaining to the Suit Property. Therein they contend that, based on a mutual understanding between the parties, Roshni Hotels is entitled to continued use of the Suit Property till at least the fixed date of expiry on 31st October, 2026. In support of this assertion, relying on Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 [“Easements Act”], Roshni Hotels seeks a declaration to affirm their status as a licensee with an irrevocable right in the Suit Property. Furthermore, they petition for a mandatory injunction against the Licensors, along with a claim for damages, as part of the relief sought in CS(OS) 607/2021.

6. It is pertinent to note that in the instant suit, Roshni Hotels filed an application [I.A. 15905/2021] contending that the subject matter and issues arising in the two suits are common (refer to Paragraph No. 7 of I.A. No. 15905/2021). Roshni Hotels expressed concern that separate trials for these suits could lead to contradictory judgments on these overlapping issues. Consequently, to ensure a consistent adjudication process for the interconnected nature of the disputes, they requested transfer of this case to the Bench adjudicating CS(OS) 607/2021. The two suits were subsequently listed together.

7. In CS(OS) 226/2019, due to non-filing of written statement by Roshni Hot