Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14476
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Petitioners – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Vijayalakshmi 70MM – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.742 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Vankina Allu
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Prabhakar, Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani
The nature of a license is revocable at will with due notice, distinguishing it from a lease and clarifying rights and obligations under property law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Revision Petition challenging an appellate court's order granting injunction - Licensor-licensee relationship established with conditions for use of property; prior agreements supported by documented transactions and extensions provided by licensor - The Court found misinterpretation of possession nature, emphasizing that a license is revocable at will with due notice. (Paras 19, 21, 22)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXIII - Legal irregularities noted in the filing of subsequent suits without adhering to mandatory procedures. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners seek to challenge an appellate court order allowing the respondent an injunction over a property used for parking. The petitioner, a licensor, granted permission under specific terms, which included a monthly fee arrangement that spanned a decade but was later contested when the petitioner desired to terminate this arrangement to develop the land.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondent failed to meet the necessary legal criteria for an injunction due to their status as a licensee and prior legal missteps. The appellate court's error in law led to reversal of their decision. The injunction was quashed, and the matter directed for a merits-based resolution in the original suit.
Issues: The primary issue concerned the misclassification of the relationship as a lease rather than a license and the appropriate grounds for granting injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the nature of the agreement was clearly that of a license, which is revocable, with emphasis on proper notice given by the licensor prior to termination. Confusion over rights and obligations under a lease was clarified, aligning with statutory requirements under the Transfer of Property Act.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; Appellate Court's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal framework for civil revision under the constitution (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. licensing arrangement established with conditions (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on procedural adherence and commercial impact (Para 9 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning on revocability of licenses and nature of possession (Para 19 , 21) |
ORDER:
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.11.2024, in C.M.A.No.120 of 2023, passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Ms. Vankina Allu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms.
Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed the aforesaid C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 30.10.2023, in I.A.No.175 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.2 claims himself to be the absolute owner and possessor of the plot admeasuring Ac.0- 12 guntas in Survey No.55, situated in Karmanghat Village, Hyderabad East Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500074. The property came into his possession following the demise of his father on 17.10.1997. In April 2013, B. Vijay Kumar, the managing partner of M/s.Vijayalakshmi 70MM, the respondent herein approached petitioner No.2 with a proposal to use the property as a parking area for their multiplex (M/s Vijayalakshmi 70MM), as it was conveniently located on the south-west boundary of their multiplex. Following the repeated requests of the respondent, the petitioner No.2 finally granted permission to use the property imposing the following conditions, viz., “a) License fee of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per month and the same shall be deposited in two parts in the bank accounts of the Petitioner and his wife, i.e. Petitioner No.1.
b) The License fee shall be paid on or before of 10th of every month through bank transfer.
c) The nature of the property cannot be changed by the Respondent in any manner as it is only a permissive possession and actual possession is always with the Petitioner who is the landowner.”
5. This arrangement continued smoothly for approximately ten years with the respondent making payments for the months the property was used. In the year 2021, a significant development took place wherein the petitioners successfully obtained Layout Regularization through proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021, to put the property for better use. Subsequently, in March 2023, the petitioner No.2 informed the respondent about his plans to utilize the property for other purposes. Initially, the respondent requested three months’ extension and which was granted by the petitioner No.2 until June, 2023 and further extensions were also provided till August, 2023 out of goodwill, despite the respondent's attempts to purchase the property.
6. However, instead of vacating the property as agreed, the respondent filed O.S.No.614 of 2023 on 15.09.2023 before the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.
When the respondent failed to obtain an ad-interim injunction in his favour, he withdrew the suit on the very next day i.e. 21.09.2023, even before the notices could be served on the petitioners. Moreover, the respondent immediately filed another suit O.S.No.652 of 2023 with identical contents and prayers and also filed an I.A.No.175 of 2023 for ad-interim injunction. The said I.A. was dismissed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge on 30.10.2023 citing lack of prima facie case and absence of bona fides.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a Miscellaneous Appeal vide C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 before the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge and which was allowed gra
