The court upheld that once the contractual terms of an expired license agreement are met, eviction proceedings can lawfully occur without judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, who is a person occupying a building owned by the 2^nd respondent on the basis of an agreement of license executed between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner was permitted to run the business of a bakery, restaurant and baking unit in the building owned by the 2^nd respondent. The period of license granted as per Ext.P1 is already over in the year 2024. Now, Ext.P8 notice dated 24.11.2025 is issued by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner, requiring him to vacate the premises within a period of three months.

2. The petitioner submitted a request to the 2^nd respondent to permit him to continue in the building for one year, highlighting certain practical difficulties in vacating the premises within such a short period. The case of the petitioner is that, without considering the same, the 3^rd respondent issued a further notice as evidenced by Ext.P12 to vacate the premises within a period of seven days from the date of notice i.e, 24.02.2026. Moreover, the 2^nd respondent also published Ext.P13 notice, inviting tenders for allotting the said building. The petitioner has approached this Court in these circumstances seeking the following reliefs:

“a. To declare that Exhibit P13 and P14 are arbitrary actions without following due process.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Exhibit P8 and P12 issued by 3rd respondent.

c. To Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents not to evict the Petitioner or demolish the premises bearing No. 9/5- B(245) (New 61/1628), South Beach, Kozhikode, arbitrarily and without following due process of law.

d. To dispense with the English translation of documents in Malayalam.

e. Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find that, this is not a case in which the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. This is particularly because, what is sought to be enforced by the petitioner is the right of the petitioner based on the terms and conditions in the license agreement executed between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The tenure fixed in the said agreement is already over in the year 2024. Besides, the terms and conditions in the said agreement stipulates that, the notice of eviction can be issued by giving three months time and as evidenced by Ext.P8, such a notice is already issued and the period stipulated therein is also expired. Therefore, since this is a contractual dispute, I do not find any scope for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, in view of the fact that the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. However, to enable the petitioner to make necessary alternate arrangements for shifting his business the petitioner is granted one month's time from today, to vacate the premises.

Sd/-