THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT versus K. SREENIVASAN

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 03-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT 
A 
v. 
K. SREENIV ASAN 
MAY 3, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
1968-Sections 2(j) and 4-0ccupation of building to a person as licensee-
Grant of-licensee defaulting in payment of license fee as such license being C 
terminated-However licensee continuing in occupation of building-Whether 
case of licensee can be treated to be 'unauthorised occupation' within the 
meaning of Section 2(j)-Held, yes and thus the Estate Officer is competent 
to pass eviction order. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'occupation' with authority or without authority and 'any 
other mode of transfer'-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(/) of the 
Kera/a Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968, 
Discussed 
The question arose for consideration is whether continuance in 
occupation of a licensee after expiry or termination of the authority for 
occupation granted under the licence can be treated to be unauthorised within 
the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. A licensee does not scquire any interest in the property by 
virtue of grant of licence in his favour in relation to any immovable property, 
D 
E 
F 
but once the authority to occupy and use the same is granted in his favour by 
way of licence, he continues to exercise that right so long the authority has G 
not expired or has not been determined for any reason whatsoever, meaning 
thereby so long the period of licence has not expired or the same has not been 
determined on the grounds permissible under the contract or law. Occupation 
of licensee is pe_rmissive by virtue of the grant of licence in his favour, though 
he does not acquire any right in the property and the property remains in 
783 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A possession and control of the grantor, but by virtue of such a grant, he acquires 
a right to remain in occupation so long the licence is not revoked and/or he is 
not evicted from its occupation either in accordance with law or otherwise. 
[792-G, H; 793-AJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2. Main thrust of Section 2(f) of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction 
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 is upon the expression 'occupation' with 
authority or without authority. If a person without any authority occupies any 
public building he would be a trespasser and his case would be covered by first 
part of Section 2(f) and would be liable to be evicted under the provisions of the 
Act instead of taking recourse to ordinary law by filing a suit. Second part of 
Section 2(f) deals with cases where a person is in occupation by virtue of an 
authority granted in his favour irrespective of the fact whether the authority 
is in the form of lease or licence or in any other form. In case of lease of a 
public building, upon expiry of the period limited thereby or its determination 
in accordance with law, the special procedure prescribed und~r the Act 
providing speedy remedy for eviction would apply even though some interest 
in the immovable property is created in favour of the lessee by virtue of 
creation of lease in his favour. But in a case of licence, no interest in the 
property is created by virtue of the grant, but a person acquires a right to 
continue his occupation by virtue of the authority granted in his favour under 
the licence unless the period of licence has expired or the same has been 
determined or licence has been revoked and/or the licensee is evicted by the 
grantor which can be through ordinary procedure of filing suit. If it is held 
that Section 2(f) would apply only in case of lease and not in the case of licence, 
the position will be very incongruous since this could not have been the 
intention of the legislature. [793-B-E) 
1.3. Out of the expressions 'whether by way oflease' or 'any other mode 
of transfer', the latter one is very wide and would not necessarily .mean only 
that mode of transfer whereby a right has been created in immovable property. 
The expression 'transfer' under the Transfer of Property Act connotes creation 
of some interest in immovable property. But under Section 2(f) of the Act such 
G a restricted meaning would defeat the purpose of legislation which is 
impermissible. The expression "any other mode of transfer" would definitely 
bring within its sweep the case of a licensee where right of the grantor to 
occupy and continue to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.