The issuance of a mandatory injunction to vacate premises is valid when an agreement changes the nature of possession from a lease to a license.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for mandatory injunction directing him to surrender vacant possession of the shop room scheduled in the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises because of the expiry of the period of license under Ext. A1 agreement which was executed on 01.11.2013. The period of license was for 11 months and on expiry of the period of license, the plaintiffs demanded vacant possession which was refused by the defendant and hence the suit.

2.1. The defendant appeared and contested the suit contending that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit. Execution of Ext. A1 agreement was also disputed, and it was pointed out that the defendant was a lessee in respect of the premises from 2005 onwards and that the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant is a licensee cannot be sustained. It was further contended that the defendant was conducting a Government services business in the plaint schedule property and hence cannot be evicted.

2.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts. A1 to A5 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants Exts. B1 to B2 series were produced and DW1 was examined.

2.3. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the defendant had admitted Ext. A1 license agreement, the plaintiffs were entitled for the decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit was decreed directing the defendants to put possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within one month from the date of the decree. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 6 of 2022 which was dismissed by the III Addl. Sub Court, Kozhikode on 31.10.2025.

3. Heard Smt. Parvathi S., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. A. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below failed to notice the fact that the appellant is conducting a Akshaya Centre and, therefore, the eviction of the appellant will cause serious inconvenience to the public. She further pointed out that the continuation of the appellant in the shop room was as a lessee from 2005 onwards and, therefore, merely because Ext. A1 agreement was executed, the appellant cannot be construed as a licensee. There is enough contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in order to sustain the plea of the defendants.

5. On the other hand, Sri. P. A. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents countered submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and contended that once Ext. A1 agreement is admitted, necessarily, the plea of the appellant that he is not a licensee must fail. The parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence contrary to the contract entered between the parties.

6. On consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Though it is contended that the appellant was a lessee in respect of the property from 2005 onwards, none of the earlier lease agreements were produced before the Courts below. That apart, even assuming for argument’s sake that the character of possession of the appellant was as a ‘lessee’, the moment Ext. A1 agreement was executed in the year 2013 and that the parties consciously changed the character of possession to that of a licensee, the contention to the contrary must fail.

6.1. Resultantly, finding that there is no substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal, the appeal fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.

7. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks reas