Section 60(b) Of Easement Act Doesn't Attract If It's Expressly Laid Down That License Will Be Revocable In Case Of Breach Of Certain Conditions: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 60 (b) of the Easement Act will not be attracted in a case where it is expressly laid down that in breach of certain conditions the license was revocable.

It also said that that once the Court finds that the case of the petitioners lacks merit and is liable to rejected, the requirement of “due process of law” stands fulfilled.

The Court held thus in a petition filed by Vigyan Parishad, a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860.

A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, “Section 60 (b) of the Easement Act will not be attracted in this case as the license expressly laid down that in breach of certain conditions the license was revocable. Since the petitioners had admitted that they were carrying out activities, which were contrary to the aims and objects for which the premises was given to them. Hence, the license was rightly revoked by the respondent no.2 and the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the Easement Act." 

The Bench further observed that even the Apex Court has held that in event “recourse course of law” stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial determination is made with regards to the first party’s proactive action, there will be no need for the respondents to initiate separate legal action for eviction of the petitioners.

"The last contention of the petitioners that they cannot be evicted even if the writ petition is dismissed and the respondents have to take separate legal action in the Court of law is also not tenable as the petitioners have invited the judicial pronouncement and once this Court finds that the case set up by the petitioners lacks merit is liable to be rejected, the requirement of “due process of law” stands fulfilled”, noted the Court.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Pande and Advocate Nitinjay Pandey appeared for the petitioners while Senior Advocate Amit Saxena and Advocate Kunal Shah appeared for the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

According to the petitioners, the Vigyan Parishad was founded by four renowned scholars of Muir Central College (now the University of Allahabad) with the object of developing scientific activities in Hindi. The then Principal of Muir Central College had provided a place for opening an office for the Parishad. For this purpose, a resolution was passed by the Executive Council of the University and after the resolution was passed and the land was handed over to the Parishad, the Parishad set up a building and started to pursue the aims and objects for which the Parishad was created and the land was allotted to them. The office bearers of Parishad, realising the location and potential of the building, started misusing and rented out a part of the premises to a commercial entity to earn profit from the said building.

Apart from such a commercial activity, it was alleged by the respondents that the petitioners started renting out the other portion for various other commercial activities, which had nothing to do with the aims and objects of the Parishad, nor had any permission from the University to do so. On inspection by the University authorities, it was found that the petitioners were indulging in illegal commercial activities renting the part of the premises, and also using the property as banquet hall for organizing parties and events instead of carrying on the activities for which the land was allotted to them. Thereafter, a notice was issued, pointing out the illegal use of the premises. The reply to the same was itself clear that the petitioners had admitted of carrying on other commercial activities in the said premises and rented it to the U.P. Chamber of Commerce Industries, which was allotted for a particular reason.

The High Court in the above context of the case said, “Once the petitioners have admitted that they have been carrying out the activities in derogation of the terms of the grant they cannot challenge the impugned order. … In this case, it is clear that after the petitioners have made a categorical admission that the petitioners were carrying out activities in derogation of the terms of the grant and as per Clauses 2 (ii), (iii), (v) of the terms of the agreement. Undoubtedly, the building belongs to the respondent no.2 and the petitioners could have used it as long it continue to function according to the aims and objects for which the premises was given to them.”

The Court also noted that in case, the petitioners deviate from their aims and objects and start doing something else not approved by the University, they shall vacate the premises within six months. It further said that the petitioners started engaging in commercial activities which was contrary to the terms on which the premises was given to the petitioners.

“… the respondent no.2 had all the rights to ask the petitioners to vacate the premises. As far as the notice or opportunity of hearing is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that breach of audi alteram partem rule is itself not sufficient and the Court would not interfere unless the party pleads and establishes that a prejudice has been caused to him. … Section 60 (b) of the Easement Act will not be attracted in this case as the license expressly laid down that in breach of certain conditions the license was revocable”, held the Court.

The Court concluded that the license was rightly revoked by the respondent and hence, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the Easement Act.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title- Vigyan Parishad and Another v. Union of India and 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:207611-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment