“REVOCATION OF LICENSE”

PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED IN FINAL FULFILMENT OF THE

COURSE TITLED-
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882

SUBMITTED BY:
NAME: PULAK
COURSE: B.B.A LLB (Hons.)
ROLL NO: 2031
SEMESTER: 2ND

SUBMITTED TO:
DR VIJAY KUMAR VIMAL
FACULTY OF LAW

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA

NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA- 800001
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project entitled “Revocation of License” submitted by me at
Chanakya National Law University is a record of bona fide project work carried out by me
under the guidance of Dr Vijay Kumar Vimal. I further declare that the work reported in this
project has not been submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the
award of any other degree or diploma in this university or any other university.

(Pulak)
Roll No: 2031

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research work is a culmination of efforts of lots of people who gave their intense support
and helped me in the completion of this project.

First, I am very grateful to my teacher Dr Vijay Kumar Vimal, whose guidance and advice
helped me in completing my project. He explained the topic clearly and helped me proceed in
my project work. I would also like to thank him for his valuable suggestions towards the
making of this project.

I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their co-operation and encouragement
which helped me in completion of this project. I am also thankful to the library staff of my
university who assisted me in acquiring the necessary sources for the completion of my
project.

Lastly, I would like to thank my grandparents for their constant support and faith in me,
which motivated me to concentrate on my project and to complete it in time.

I thank all of them!

Pulak

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESIS ...................................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 6
2. LICENSE....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Licensee ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 License Distinguished from Easement .................................................................... 10
3. POWER TO GRANT LICENSE .................................................................................. 12
3.1 Express or implied grant ......................................................................................... 13
3.2 License when transferable ....................................................................................... 13
4. LICENSE WHEN REVOCABLE ................................................................................ 15
4.1 Clause (a) ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Clause (b) ................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 Licensee’s Remedy Against Improper Revocation................................................. 18
4.4 Other sections related to revocation ....................................................................... 19
5. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 22
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 23

4
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• The researcher wants to study the various laws on license in India

• The researcher aims to explain the revocation of license in India
• The researcher also aims to diffentiate the laws on revocation in India and England
• The researcher wants to study the various cases related to revocation of license

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher will do a doctrinal type of research in which he will study and work on the
primary as well as the secondary sources. The researcher through this method will go through
case laws, books, articles and various legal works on revocation of license. The researcher
will, therefore, try to form a clear picture of the topic. The doctrinal method will help in
doing a comparative study of the topic. This methodology helps in going through many
works and cases in less time. This will also help in getting a bird’s eye view of the subject.
Critical examination of laws on license in Common Law countries will be done. Emphasis
will be laid on differential diagnosis of the topic through various case laws.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher presumes that the laws for the revocation of license in the Indian Easement
Act, 1882 are justified.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What is license?
• What are the ways in which a license can be revoked?
• When is a license deemed to be revoked?
• What are the licensee’s rights on revocation?

5
 1. INTRODUCTION
Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, defines license as when a person is granted a
right to which he does not have, in or upon an immovable property of the granter, to do or
continue to do something, doing of which in absence of the grant would be illegal, which is
neither easement or an interest in the property, it is called license.

A license, inter alia, (a) is not assignable; (b) does not entitle the licensee to use the stranger
in his own name; (c) it is revocable and (d) it is determined when the grantor makes
subsequent assignment. The rights and obligations of the lessor as contained in the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 are also subject to the contract to the contrary.

Thus, a right will be a right acquired by a person by way of license if,

(a) It is not the right of that person acquired by himself by way of an interest or a right by
way of easement
(b) It is granted by the owner of an immovable property authorising that person to do or
continue to do something which in absence of the grant would be unlawful.

So, if a person himself has acquired a right or interest in an immovable property through an
instrument, the rights conveyed in his favour in that instrument, will not be license. 1

A license is a contract for the use of the property in a certain way and on certain terms while
possession and control of the property remains upon the owner.

In India, judicial and legislative definitions of license have followed the English definitions
of the term. 2 According to the English law, a license is a purely personal privilege or right
enabling the licensee to do something on the land of the licensee which would otherwise be
unlawful. It is an excuse by reason of the consent of the licensor for doing an act which
would otherwise be unlawful. 3

A “dispensation or license”, stated Vaughan, C.J., in Thomas v. Sorrell (1673) “properly

passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property or anything, but only makes an action
lawful, which without it had been unlawful.”

1
A.N. Agrawal v. Hukum Singh, 1997 (1) AWC 279
2
Krishna v. Rayappa, 4 Mad HCR 98
3
Heap v. Hartley, 58 LJ Ch 790

6
A license is a personal relation between the licensor and licensee. It has to take nothing with
the property in respect of which it is enjoyed. It is a non-transferrable and a non-heritable
right. It dies with the death of the licensee. The legal representatives if hold the property if
after the death of the licensee, only hold it illegally and are trespassers. The licensee cannot
acquire right against the licensor irrespective of the length of time during which he enjoyed
the license. 4

Section 60 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, talks about revocation of license.

A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless

(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force

(b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character
and incurred expenses in the execution.

Section 60 is also a kind of exception to section 62 of this Act.5 Unlike the case of a lease, the
law does not provide for the forfeiture of a license. The forfeiture of a right is in the nature of
a penalty. In the absence of an express condition in the agreement, or a statutory provision,
prescribing for forfeiture, even on the denial of the owners title, it is not permissible to invoke
the law of forfeiture by applying the analogy of a lessor and lessee. The reason for this
distinction between a lease and a license is apparent. In the case of a license, except in the
two cases mentioned in this section, a licensor has the power to revoke it at his will.
Therefore, the Legislature has made no provision in the Act for the forfeiture of a license.6

Clause (a) and clause (b) are not exhaustive; parties by agreement can make license
irrevocable even if it is not covered by clause (a) or clause (b). In Panchu Gopal Barua v.
Umesh Chandra Goswami,7 held that through the Indian Easements Act had no application to
State of West Bengal, the High Court only apply the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience in deciding to which the said Act were to be applied.

Normally, a license is revocable unless the case falls under clause (a) or clause (h) of section
60 of the Easements Act. Under clause (a) if the license is coupled with a transfer of property
and such transfer is in force the license would not be revocable and under clause (b) if the
licensee, acting upon the license, had executed a work of permanent character and incurred

4
M.K. Venugopal v. Aswasthamma, 2005 (1) Kar LJ 150
5
Sahab Ram v Banarsi, AIR 1997 All LJ 1071
6
Ravuru Punnama v Lakkaraju Venkata Subba Rao, AIR 1953 Mad 456
7
AIR 1997 SC 1041

7
expenses in the execution then too the license will not be revocable. It is a mixed question of
fact and law whether the necessary conditions about the irrevocability of the license existed
or not. Hence, in order to render a license irrevocable three conditions were required

(1) the licensee executed a work of permanent character

(2) he did so acting upon the license; and

(3) he incurred expenses in the execution. 8

Clause (a) of section 60 applies only if the license is coupled with a transfer of property and
such transfer is in force. Clause (b) would apply only if the licensee has executed a work of
permanent character and incurred expenses in execution of such work. In the instant case
neither clause (a) nor clause (b) applied. 9

License stands revoked on the expiry of the period thereof. If the licensee makes default in
payment of license fee, no notice need be given for ejectment.10

8
Phool Singh v Smt. Bardhu Bai, AIR 1974 Raj 90
9
Sri Ratha Behera v Ram Ratan Goenka, 1974 1 CWR 216
10
Municipal Committee, Ambala v Lalchand, 1969 Cr LJ 589

8
 2. LICENSE
Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act defines “License” as:

Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to
do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something
which would, in the absence of such right be unlawful, and such right does not amount
to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.

The following constitute the essential features of a license:

(1) A license is not connected with the ownership of any land, but creates only a personal
right or obligation,11 hence, it cannot be assigned.

(2) It is purely permissive right arising only by permission, express or implied, and not by
adverse exercise or in any other way, hence, it is generally revocable at the will of the
grantor.

(3) It only legalises a certain act which would otherwise be unlawful and does not confer any
interest in the property itself in or upon or over which such act is allowed to be done. 12

2.1 Licensee
A licensee is a person to whom rights have been given by a license and when a person acts as
a licensee he acts in the exercise of those rights on his own account and not as an agent of
another.

A licensee, as such, cannot bring a suit or get a declaration for removing the obstruction put
up by the third parties over the subject-matter of the license. A mere license or covenant that
a party may do a particular thing (the grant of sole and exclusive rights plying boats for hire
on a canal) enables the party to sue in the name of the grantor so as to prevent strangers from
intervening if the grantor gives him permission in order to carry out the grant. But he cannot
have a right of action against another person for using pleasure-boats for hire on the canal. A
licensee has a limited right to evict an encroacher during the period of license.

11
Hill v Tupper, (1863). 2 H&C 121
12
Heap v Hartley, 42 Ch D 461: 58 LJ Ch 790

9
The licensee is granted a right of possession to a limited extent even after a license is revoked
and he is also conferred with a right to seek compensation if evicted before he had fully
enjoyed the rights guaranteed under the license. 13

The amount paid by a licensee is only license fee. Mere payment would not create any
interest in the property.14 License creates no interest in the property. Where a deed provides
that licensee would be entitled to use premises but will have no right, title or interest to
possess premises and the license fee is payable per day, it was held that the intention of
parties was to create license and not lease.

As a grant generally forms the basis of transfer of an interest in immovable property, of an

easement, or of a license pure and simple as well as of license coupled with a grant of an
interest in immovable property, in each case where a grant is alleged it is to be seen whether
the right granted thereby is only a license pure and simple or a license coupled with a grant of
an interest in immovable property or an easement or a transfer of an interest in immovable
property and the solution of this question is not always easy but is attended generally with
considerable difficulty. An employee provided with an accommodation by his employer in
order to facilitate the employee to discharge his function is only a licensee vis-a-vis this
employer as licensor.15

2.2 License Distinguished from Easement

(1) An easement is a right appertaining to property while a license is only a personal right.

(2) An easement is a right in rem and is enforceable by all and against all into whose hands
the servient and the dominant tenements respectively may come, while a license is only a
right in personam and, therefore, not so enforceable.

(3) An easement can be assigned with the property to which it is annexed, but a license
cannot be assigned at all except where it is a license to attend a place of public entertainment.

(4) A right of easement is not revocable at the will of the grantor while a license is so
revocable, except where the grantor is estopped by his conduct from exercising the power of
revocation conferred by law. 16

13
R. Ravikrishnan v Bharat Petroleum Corporation, (2007) 5 Mad LJ 212
14
Mayabhai Jamalbhai v Karimbhai Muhammadbhai, AIR 1967 Guj 16
15
Madan Mohan Kukreti v Geeta Bhawan, 2007 (3) ALJ 632
16
Peacock J, Thomas v Sorrel, Vaughan’s Reports.

10
Where a deed partition between two brothers recited that the brother without a well should be
allowed the use of a well fallen to the share of the other brother, out of brotherly affection
and not as of right, it was held that as the license was granted as part of a partition, it was a
license coupled with transfer of property falling under clause (a) of section 60 and, therefore,
irrevocable.17

(5) A license is permissive right traceable to a grant from the licensor either expressly or
impliedly. But an easement is acquired either by assertive enjoyment by the dominant owner
or by a negative covenant between the parties or by grant or by statute.

(6) An easement may be positive or negative in character, a license is invariably positive and
cannot be negative in character. It may be that there are cases in which a negative obligation
might be cast on the licensor with the object of protecting a license coupled with a grant, but
such obligation is due to the grant accompanying the license and not to the license per se.

A license may be of two kinds, namely, a bare license which is purely a matter of personal
privilege, and a license coupled with a grant or interest. The distinction between the two is
that a bare license without more is always revocable at the will of the licensor and is not
assignable, the power of revoking a bare license being not affected by the fact that the license
had been for valuable consideration, and there being no difference in the incidents of “an
exclusive license” and “an ordinary license” but in the case of a license coupled with a grant
or interest, the grantor cannot in general revoke it so as to defeat the grant to which it is
incidental. A bare license, however, becomes irrevocable when the licensee acting upon the
license executes a work of a permanent character and incurs expense in doing so. It may be
noted that section 60 of the Act uses the words “transfer of property” for the words “grant or
interest” used in the English law.

17
Janardan v Ram Chandar, AIR 1927 Bom 240

11
 3. POWER TO GRANT LICENSE
Section 53 defines who may grant a license –

A license may be granted by anyone in the circumstances and to the extent in and to
which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the license.

Power to grant a license is co-extensive with the power to transfer. A man can grant a license
in the circumstances and to the extent he can transfer his interest in the property affected
thereby. When, therefore, the practical effect of a license is the same as the effect of a sale or
of a perpetual lease it must be governed by the same rules of the Hindu law which prohibit
the transfers by the members of a joint Hindu family without legal necessity.

Power to grant license which is only a personal right attaching only a personal obligation on
the grantor is more extensive than the power to impose an easement which affects the
property itself. For instance, A, B and C are co-owners of certain land. A cannot without the
consent of B and C impose an easement on the land or on any part thereof. But as a co-tenant
may lawfully enjoy the whole property, in anyway, not destructive of its substance as to
amount to an ouster of the other co tenants, and whatever he may himself do, he may license
another to do. So, a license by a co-tenant or his mortgagee who is lawfully in the sole
possession and enjoyment of the property, to do a thing which he could himself lawfully do is
a valid license. A license to cut wood in a forest given by a mortgagee of a co-tenant in sole
possession of such forest by arrangement between co-tenants was held, on this principle, to
entitle the licensee to cut wood in the whole of the forest, the other co-tenants being entitled
only to their proportionate share of profits from the licensor in a proper suit for accounts and
not to a suit for injunction and damages against the licensee. 18

A plea that the licensor, who is ‘karta’ of a joint family cannot create permanent license,
cannot be sustained, where no co-sharer had challenged the validity of the license on this
ground.19

18
Balvantrav v Ganpatrav, 1 Bom 336
19
Ram Sarup Gupta v Bishan Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242

12
3.1 Express or implied grant
Section 54 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 states that –

The grant of a license may be expressed or implied from the conduct of the grantor, and
the agreement which purports to create an easement, but is ineffectual for that purpose,
may operate to create a license.

A license may be implied from the conduct of the licensor where by acquiescence or
encouragement, he allows something to be done on his own land by another person who
believes the land to be his own.

License is purely a contract between the licensor and licensee. It creates no right in land and
lapses with the death of the licensor or licensee. Where, however license is given to a person
to live in a house but the other members of the family of the licensee live along with him
without any objection from the licensor, implied license may be presumed. The death of the
licensee does not terminate the implied license in favour of other members. 20

A plea of an implied license on which may be based the right of equity to intervene, must
have for its foundation either a contract or the existence of some fact which the legal owner is
estopped from denying.

3.2 License when transferable

Section 56 of this act deals with transfer of license;

Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a license to attend a

place of public entertainment may be transferred by the licensee; but, save as aforesaid,
a license cannot be transferred by the licensee or exercised by his servants or agents.

A license does not create any interest in the property in respect of which it is granted but
creates only a privilege.21 By virtue of the words “save as aforesaid” the words “unless a
different intention is expressed or necessarily implied” not only control the first clause of
section 56 but also its second clause; that is to say, the words “save as aforesaid” in the
second clause of the section bring in the words “unless a different intention is expressed or
necessarily implied”.

20
Nand Gopal v Brij Mohanlal, 1966 ALJ 166
21
Ashok Kumar v Hardayal, (1995) 1 Sim LJ 552

13
The words “save as aforesaid” are important and they must be read with the opening words of
the section “unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied”. Where the
“different intention” is expressed there can possibly be no difficulty for the simple reason that
its construction is governed by the ordinary rules of the construction.

But the question what circumstances would imply such intention is not free from difficulty. It
has, however, been held that where the different intention contemplated by the section is not
express, it may be inferred from surrounding circumstances or may be found as an incident of
a local usage. The question whether licensee is entitled to transfer his license right can be
answered by reference to the terms of the license. 22

A mere license which is also known as a license for pleasure is founded in personal
confidence. It is a purely personal privilege exercised by the grantee himself. Its exercise
cannot be delegated to anybody else. Hence, it can neither be assigned to anybody else nor
can it be exercised by the licensee's servants or agents.

The reason is that it would amount to a gross abuse of the privilege if the licensee were to
convey to a third person the right granted to him exclusive on the basis of personal
confidence. 23

There are two exceptions to this general rule, namely,

(a) where the license is a license to attend a place of public entertainment; and

(b) where it is coupled with a grant of immovable property or of an interest in the immovable
property such as a profits a prendre either of which is assignable and can be exercised by the
licensee's servants or agents.24 But the licensor is free to make, by the terms of his grant, a
license to attend a place of public entertainment non-transferable.

22
Ram Bharose v Bishnath, AIR 1934 All 336
23
Hriday Narain v Babu Ram, AIR 1941 Oudh 172
24
Musket v Hill, 5 Bing NC 694; Krishna v Rayappa, 4 Mad HCR 98

14
 4. LICENSE WHEN REVOCABLE
Revocation of a license is enumerated in section 60 of the Indian Easement Act. It states that:

A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless –

(a) It is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force;

(b) The licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent
character and incurred expenses in the execution.

Where intention of the parties was never to create irrevocable license in the favour of
plaintiff, the permission granted to him to use roof top and garden but not as tenancy rights
would be revocable. Under section 60 of the Act, a license becomes irrevocable when it is
coupled with a Transfer of Property Act and the transfer is enforced and when the licensee
has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in such execution. 25

Where revocation of the license is challenged on the ground that the licensee had executed
work of permanent character and incurred expenditure therein, the work executed must be
within specifications fixed by the Government. If the lessees had given up their easementary
right in the agreement then they could not claim license as irrevocable.

A license can be revoked by the grantor at any time and it is not necessary to give opportunity
of hearing to the licensee for revoking the license where it was not coupled with transfer of
property nor was the licensee permitted by the grantor to execute work of permanent
character.26 Where a license coupled with the grant of interest in the nature of property and it
could be inferred from the conduct of the parties that the license was not given for temporary
occupation it would be irrevocable one.

Absence or termination of clause or specific period of license is not itself sufficient to convert
a revocable license to irrevocable one. Where original license deed itself showed that the
intention was to grant a long-term license of up to 30 years, unless there was a serious and e
unremedied breach of an essential term of license normally the same would not be
terminated.

25
Mini Peter Philips v Dina J.S Fanibanda, 2007 (4) Bom CR 526
26
Purnima Pandey v Chief Medical Superintendent, AIR 2003 All 57

15
4.1 Clause (a)
It is a recognised principle that a licensee must hold the land in respect of which a right of
privilege is created before he can seek to enforce covenant under the document. It is not
enough that he has a contract in his favour. He must continue to have an interest in the
subject matter of the contract before a right of injunction or damages can be conceded. 27

The transfer of property contemplated by section 60(a) must have reference to the same
property for which the license is granted. Both the properties must be properties of the
grantor. Thus, if the owner of property grants a license to another to enter upon his land and
to appropriate the produce for a period of years, the license would be one coupled with a
transfer of property, as it relates to the property of the grantor as well as the produce thereon.
In such a situation, when the grantee is to secure not only a right to enter upon another's
property but also to obtain benefit of property thereon by such entry, then section 60(a)
provides that so long as the arrangement remains in force, the license shall not be revoked.

The first of the two tests of irrevocability laid down in this section is obviously narrower than
the corresponding test laid down in the English cases. In order to be irrevocable under this
section, a license has to be coupled with a transfer of property whereas under the English law
it is enough if it is coupled with a grant or interest in the nature of property. The liberalised
principles adopted by the English Courts have not, therefore, to be applied to cases to which
the Act applies.

Clause (a) of the section lays down one exception to the general rule that a license is
revocable, and enacts that a license may be revoked by the grantor unless it is coupled with a
transfer of property and such transfer is in force. According to the canons of interpretation the
exception is to receive a strict and narrow construction and, therefore, unless the license is
coupled with a transfer of property, in the proper sense of the pression, it can be revoked.
Where the tenant had not only put a person into possession of the property but had also put
him in charge of the furniture and stock-in-trade and also good will does not amount to
transfer of an interest in the property. A transfer of property in terms of Chapter VI of the
Indian Easements Act necessarily refers to transfer of an interest in immovable property.
Moreover, giving a right to use the furniture and stock-in-trade does not amount to transfer.
At the most it would be permission or license to use the furniture and stock-in-trade.28

27
Mohammad Khan v Ramnarayan Misra, AIR 1956 Ori 156
28
Jagannath v Jayantilal, AIR 1980 Guj 4

16
4.2 Clause (b)
The irrevocability of license enumerated in clause (b) of this section is based on principles
similar to those on which estoppel arises against a person from revoking grant, after the
grantee acting on the grant, had acted to his own detriment. Consequently, a licensee making
permanent land whenever asked is precluded from pleading irrevocability A license is
irrevocable, if a work of a permanent character has been executed. To such a case, section 64
does not apply. 29

Generally, a license is revocable at the Will of the grantor as no interest in the land is
conferred by a license. But the license is irrevocable, if the licensee, acting upon it, has
executed works of a permanent character and has incurred expenses in their construction A
license cannot be revoked even when part only of a work of permanent character has been
executed by the licensee. This principle has received judicial as well as statutory recognition
in India, and is also adapted from English law. When it is found as a fact that a person was in
occupation under a power of attorney granted by the owner and the document (power-of-
attorney) was intended to be acted upon and was in fact acted upon, the argument for
irrevocable license does not survive for consideration). If the attorney has built some
permanent structure on the land of the owner, it cannot be said that he has done so acting
upon the license, as required by section 60(b) of the Easements Act. As he (the attorney)
claimed to be a tenant and that he will become a statutory purchaser of the land or an alleged
oral agreement of sale will one fine day be implemented (which was denied by the owner),
the execution of work of a permanent character would therefore, in his capacity as a tenant or
a prospective purchaser and not in his capacity as a licensee. It constitutes the second
exception to the rule that a license is revocable at the instance of the licensor. As the rule is
based on the principle of an implied grant arising from the conduct of the licensor which
estops him from claiming his right of revocation, it applies only in cases of grants of an
unlimited character by persons possessing an unlimited power of disposition. But where the
power of disposition is limited in character or duration or where the right of revocation is
expressly reserved, or where the license is granted only for a limited term, or where the act
licensed is found to have such injurious consequences as could not have been contemplated
by the licensor in its inception, or where there are any other circumstances which make the
inference of an irrevocable grant or the application of the principle of estoppel by conduct
impossible, or at any rate improbable, this rule does not apply and all that a licensee can do is

29
Hafiz Mansoor Ahmed v Mohammad Abdul Jamir, ILR 56 All 207

17
to claim compensation for any loss occasioned by revocation. The Court may, in such cases,
grant a relief of revocation to the licensor on condition of his paying the expenses incurred by
the licensee, where the equities of the case demand such course to be adopted; but each case
must be decided on its own merits.30

Where the case of the plaintiff is that the room was given on license to the defendant. Even if
it is accepted that the defendant made the roof of the room partly pucca and partly by placing
thatch, it would not amount to raising permanent structure acting upon the license rendering it
irrevocable.

Where there is an agreement between the parties for the license to expire by efflux of time,
section 60(b) does not apply. Nothing in the Act precludes the parties from entering into any
such agreement.

4.3 Licensee’s Remedy Against Improper Revocation

A bare license may be revoked at the instance of the licensor at any time he likes. And it is
true that there is no provision in sections 60, 61, 63 or 64 for the issue of any notice, as in the
case of leases before a license can be revoked. But the licensee should, in proper cases, have
reasonable notice of such revocation and after revocation he must be given reasonable time to
quit the land and remove his chattels which he has been licensed to put there. If he is thrust
off without such notice or before such reasonable time though he is not entitled to an
injunction restraining the licensor from adopting such improper course yet he may get such
damages as may have been caused to him thereby. Similarly, where a license is granted for
valuable consideration and before the licensee has had full enjoyment of it, it is revoked in
breach of an express or implied contract, the licensee's remedy lies only in an action for
damages for breach of contract or implied covenant not to revoke. If the obstruction in the
enjoyment of a bare license is laid not by the licensor, but by a third party the licensee may
not sue in his own name for the removal of such obstruction.31

A bare license does not create such an estate or interest in the land as to enable a licensee to
maintain an action in his own name against a third person for the infringement of his right.
He must obtain permission from the licensor to sue the wrong-doer in his name in such cases.
The mere fact that the license is an exclusive license makes no difference, unless the wrong-
doer has notice of its being exclusive.

30
Kesava Pillai v Peddu Reddi, 1 Mad HC 258
31
Hill v Tupper, 8 LT 792

18
But if the license is not a revocable license the licensee's remedy against an obstruction is
either by injunction restraining such obstruction or in damages for breach of contract. In the
cases of irrevocable license, the licensee has sufficient possessory title to maintain such
action in his own name against a third person.

In spite of having alternative remedy, the writ court is not debarred from taking cognizance of
any matter.32

4.4 Other sections related to revocation

• Section 61, Indian Easement Act, states that; The revocation of a license may be
express or implied.

As no particular words are necessary to constitute express revocation, so no particular acts

are necessary to constitute implied revocation. In either case, it is sufficient if the words or
acts, which are pleaded as constituting an express or implied revocation, indicate clearly and
unequivocally the licensor's intention to withdraw the license or its being inconsistent with
the continued exercise thereof. For instance, where there is a license to open ventilators in a
demised building and the assignee of the lessor builds on the adjoining land totally
obstructing these ventilators, it is sufficient to constitute implied revocation. 33

• Section 62, states that; A license is deemed to be revoked –

(a) when, from a cause preceding the grant of it, the grantor ceases to have any interest in the
property affected by the license;

(b) when the licensee releases it, expressly or impliedly, to the grantor or his representative;

(c) where it has been granted for a limited period, or acquired on condition that it shall
become void on the performance or non-performance of a specified act, and the period
expires, or the condition is fulfilled;

(d) where the property affected by the license is destroyed or by superior force so
permanently altered that the licensee can no longer exercise his right:

(e) where the licensee becomes entitled to the absolute ownership of the property affected by
the license;

32
Arvind Singh v State of UP, 2005 (60) ALR 261
33
Wallis v Harrison, 4 M&W 538 (544)

19
(f) where the license is granted for a specified purpose and the purpose is attained, or
abandoned, or becomes impracticable;

(g) where the license is granted to the licensee as holding a particular office, employment or
character, and such office, employment or character ceases to exist;

(h) where the license totally ceases to be used as such for an unbroken period of twenty years,
and such cessation is not in pursuance of a contract between the grantor and the licensee

(i) in the case of an accessory license, when the interest or right to which it is accessory
ceases to exist.

• Section 63 discusses the licensee's rights on revocation; Where a license is revoked,

the licensee is entitled to a reasonable time to leave the property affected thereby and
to remove any goods which he has been allowed to place on such property.

As a mere license is revocable at any moment at the instance of the licensor, the provisions
made by this section and the next one is very salutary to safeguard the interests of the
licensee from being jeopardised by a mere frivolous or vexatious exercise of his right of
revocation by the licensor. But for these provisions the licensee's interests would have been at
the mercy of the licensor. According to this section the licensee is entitled to a reasonable
time –

(a) to leave the property affected thereby; and

(b) to remove any goods which he has been allowed to place on such property.

The reasonable time will be reckoned from the moment the licensee has notice of such
revocation. It is, therefore, necessary that he must have a reasonable notice of such revocation
before he must prepare to leave the place and remove his goods. But such notice is necessary
only in cases where a license, being revocable at the will of the licensor, is revoked by him in
exercise of his right. Where license is revoked by operation of law, the licensee must be
prepared to leave the property and remove his goods from the time the license comes to an
end and he will be presumed to have notice of such time on the principle ‘ignorantia juris non
excusat’. But in either case he shall have reasonable time after revocation to leave the
property and remove the goods.

20
Section 63 of the Act empowers the corporation to revoke the licenses and remove the goods
from the stalls but eviction of petitioners during pendency of injunction application would not
be justified.34

A person continuing in possession of the premises after termination, withdrawal no stretch of

any in or revocation of the license continues to occupy it as a trespasser or as a person who
has no semblance of any right to continue in occupation of the premises. Such a person by no
stretch of imagination can be called a licensee. 35

A licensee, after revocation of license, has no right to seek temporary or permanent injunction
against the licensor to restrain the letter from entering upon the property. But a person who is
found to be in established possession of any property, even if he may have no legal right to
continue thereon, cannot be forcibly dispossessed. Even if the plaintiff is not entitled to the
protection of his possession, he is entitled to be protected from forcible eviction. In that view
of the matter, a restricted injunction is indeed required to be issued. If such an injunction is
not issued, the same would mean that defendant can forcibly evict the plaintiff.

34
K.V. Jose v M.D., K.S.R.T.C., 2002 AIHC 3775 (Ker.)
35
D.H. Manair v Waman Laxman Kudav, (1977) 1 SCR 403

21
 5. CONCLUSION
Property is perhaps the most important and the most complicated and extensive branch of
modern law. Under this field of law, the rights, claims, duties and obligations of the parties
involved with any kind of property become the subject of study.

Earlier, licence was described as the fact that a landowner communicated his consent to
another’s using his land; while at other times licence was described the legal relationship
whereby the other could use the land without being liable for trespass. In present times, licence
is referred to as a validation by the owner of the land for the acts of the licensee which would
otherwise be committed unlawfully.

The traditional concepts of “bare” or “mere” licenses, licenses “coupled with an interest” or
“with a grant,” licenses “acted upon” or “executed,” and licenses “upon valuable
consideration” were used earlier. Most of these concepts assumed certain differences in the
legal consequences of various transactions, and therefore furnished a poor starting point for
determining what the legal consequences of a given transaction should be. It also made it easy
to overlook important license transactions which these phrases did not suggest.

Where a licensor gives no reason to expect otherwise, the licensee’s privileges can be
terminated at will. Where a licensor manifests an intention that the privilege shall be more
enduring, the consequences depend upon other circumstances. If it offends no legal policy,
the license may create a true easement. If it offends the rule requiring a sealed instrument, it
will probably create an easement, but the licensee can obtain relief only through equitable
procedure. If enforcement of the license would encumber the land with relatively useless
burdens, neither the parties’ expectations nor their formalities nor their expenditures will give
the interest the characteristics of an easement.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

B.B. Katiyar. 2017. Law of Easements and Licenses, 16th Edition. LexisNexis.
Anindita Ganguli. Law of Easements and Licences, 4th Edition. Eastern Law House.
J.D. Jain.2017. Indian Easement Act. Allahabad Law Agency.

23