Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The main aspect to be considered by this Court for determination in this appeal is as to whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of irrevocability of the licence as envisaged in Sec.60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, in the facts and R.S.A.20/06 - : 3 :-

circumstances of this case. Sec.60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, reads as follows:
"Sec.60. License when revocable.- A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless -
Sec.60 and in no other situation and held that the said contention is not tenable and that parties can arrive at an agreement regarding the irrevocability of licences. It was held in the aforestated ruling of the Bombay High Court as follows in 2 thereof:
"2. On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended before me that a licence must always be regarded as revocable at the will of the licensor except in the two cases set out in S. 60 of the Easements Act. Section 60 reads thus :
provision comes into operation, even if there is a contract, which says that the licence is revocable under the circumstances, which would otherwise satisfy the requirements under Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act. The said contention made on behalf of the licensee was repelled by this Court in Ulahannan's case supra, by relying on the decision of the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case in Ganga Sahai v. Badrul Islam reported in AIR 1942 All.330, wherein it was held while considering the scope of Sec.60 of the Easements Act that, "a condition in the licence that the landlord would have the right to get the site vacated whenever he so chose by the licensee deprives the licensee of the benefit of S.60...... A contract to the contrary disentitles the licensee from deriving advantage conferred by S.60. There is nothing to preclude a party from binding himself to surrender land, although there may be a construction of a permanent character standing thereon..." This Court relied on the ruling of the Ghotey Lal v. Durga Bal reported in AIR 1950 All. 661, wherein it was held that "where a licensee executes a work of a permanent character under a clear understanding that he or his heirs may be called upon after certain time to leave the land, it is not open to him to plead such work as a bar against his eviction on a suit brought by the plaintiff in pursuance of the solemn undertaking given by him." In the light of this aspect, this Court held that the agreement therein stipulated a clear provision that at the time of surrender of possession, the defendant should dismantle the structures put up by him in the land in question and R.S.A.20/06 - : 13 :-