Suit For Mandatory Injunction Maintainable Against Licensee To Vacate Property After Termination Of License : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a civil suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against a licensee to vacate the property on termination of license, despite the availability of other modes of eviction.

"Merely because other modes of eviction are available to the plaintiff, the remedy by way of mandatory injunction cannot be denied. The owner of immovable property on termination of the license is entitled to maintain a suit for mandatory injunction against the licensee to vacate the property", observed Justice N Anil Kumar while dismissing a second appeal.

The second appeal was filed challenging a decree passed granting mandatory injunction for the eviction of a defendant after the termination of license.

The defendant claimed that he was in possession of the property on the basis of an oral lease arrangement with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and hence the remedy of eviction had to be sought before the rent control court. The plaintiff had relied on a document executed by the defendant in 2012, which was a license agreement. In this regard, the defendant contended that the said document was executed under misrepresentation that it was for renewal of lease arrangement with the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest.

The High Court noted that the suit document was a plain and simple license agreement. Since the defendant was a businessman, it is difficult to believe that he signed the document without understanding his contents. The Court also observed that the defendant did not prove the purported oral lease with the plaintiff's predecessor. The license was terminated after giving notice on the expiry of its term.

"In the case on hand, Exts.A1 and A2 are license agreement. The original oral lease alleged between Choyiand defendant has not been proved. As a licensee, the defendant has no interest in the building and its possession cannot exclude the rightful owner of the property", the Court observed.

The second appeal was dismissed affirming the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the trial court.

Advocate VV Surendran appeared for the appellant before the High Court. Advocate S K Adithyan appeared for the respondent.

Case : PM Aravindan v KP Udayakumar

Click here to read/download the judgment