Bombay High Court
SHRI. PUVIL KARUNAKARAN SUNILKUMARversusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALIBAG (THR. CHIEF OFFICER ALIBAG) AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A licensee has no right of possession and cannot restrain the municipal council from dispossessing him absent a declaration of authorized occupancy, so the appellate court correctly dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Puvil Karunakaran Sunilkumar, filed a suit claiming he was a licensee of Defendant No.2, who had been allotted a suit shop by the Municipal Council of Alibag, and sought an injunction restraining the Council from dispossessing him. The trial court declared him a licensee and granted an injunction against the Council, but the First Appellate Court set aside that decree, holding the suit was faulty because no privity with the Council was pleaded and a licensee does not possess the premises. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court’s decision, finding no substantial question of law and dismissing the second appeal. The Court also rejected the appellant’s request to continue the ad‑interim relief, noting the appellant had occupied the shop for 22 years and should now vacate. Consequently, the interim application was disposed of along with the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a licensee can obtain an injunction against a municipal authority to prevent dispossession without a declaration of authorized occupancy.
- Whether the suit was maintainable given the absence of privity of contract with the Municipal Council.
- Whether the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s decree granting injunction.
- Whether the ad‑interim relief should be continued pending final disposal.
Subjects
- licensee
- injunction
- municipal council
- possession
- interim relief
- civil appeal
- privity of contract
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37579
k 1/3 19 sa 139.18 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2018
Puvil Karunakaran Sunilkumar ....Appellant
V/S
Municipal Council Alibag & Anr. ....Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2016
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2018
Puvil Karunakaran Sunilkumar ....Applicant
V/S
Municipal Council Alibag & Anr. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Kunal Bhanage with Mr. Akshay Pawar for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar and Mr. Rohit Parab for
Respondent No.1-Municipal Council.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. The Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 27
November 2015 passed by the District Court-4, Alibag, allowing Regular
Civil Appeal No.159 of 2008 filed by Defendant No.1-Municipal Council
and setting aside the judgment and order dated 14 July 2008 passed by
the Civil Judge Junior Division, Alibag in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of
2004. The Trial Court had decreed the suit and while declaring that
Appellant/Plaintiff is licensee of Defendant No.2 in respect of suit shop,
katkam Page No. 1 of 3
k 2/3 19 sa 139.18 as.doc
had granted injunction against both the Defendants from dispossessing
the Plaintiff from the suit shop.
2. I have heard Mr. Bhanage, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant and Mr. Gavnekar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1-Municipal Council.
3. The suit shop was apparently allotted by Respondent No.1-
Municipal Council to Defendant No.2. It is Plaintiff’s case that he was
inducted into the suit shop as a licensee by Defendant No.2. Accordingly,
Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that he is a licensee of
Defendant No.2 and on that account Defendant No.1 should be
restrained from dispossessing him from without following due process of
law. The frame of the suit in my view itself was faulty. In the suit,
Plaintiff did not claim any privity of contract with the Municipal Council.
He claimed status as licensee of Defendant No.2 who was the allottee of
the suit shop through Defendant No.1-Municipal Council. It is difficult
to comprehend as to why any Court would ever grant injunction against
Defendant No.1-Municipal Council after declaring that Plaintiff is the
licensee of Defendant No.2. Even if it was to be held that Plaintiff is the
licensee of Defendant No.2 the same would still not stop Municipal
Council from taking action against the Plaintiff. To secure injunction
against Municipal Council, it was necessary to plead and pray for a
declaration that Plaintiff is the authorized occupant of the suit shop.
4. Mr. Bhanage submits that settled position of the Plaintiff is proved
in the present case. However, the declaration sought for by the Plaintiff
katkam Page No. 2 of 3
k 3/3 19 sa 139.18 as.doc
in the suit was in the capacity of licensee of Defendant No.2. The claim
of being a licensee demolishes the claim of being in settled possession.
The licensee never possesses the premises or property. He or she merely
has an authority to enter upon the premises and the legal possession
always remains with the licensor.
5. In my view therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly
reversed erroneous findings recorded by the Trial Court. There is no
warrant for interference in the impugned decree of the First Appellate
Court. No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. Second
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
6. After the order is pronounced, Mr. Bhanage prays for continuation
of ad-interim relief granted on 16 February 2016. The request is opposed
by Mr. Gavnekar. Pendency of litigation has already permitted Petitioner
to occupy the suit shop for the last 22 long years. Time has come for the
Appellant to vacate the suit shop. The prayer for continuation of interim
order is accordingly rejected.
7. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would survive in
the Interim Application and the same is also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2026 19:40:06
Checking your session…