DHARAMVIR KHOSLA Vs. ASIAN HOTELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six suits before this Court seek similar reliefs based on similar licences. The prayers in the six suits by the plaintiffs are that they are licencees of the defendant in respect of shops at the shopping arcade in Hyatt Hotel, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and the terms of the licences, inter alia, were akin to an irrevocable licence in perpetuity in the said shop and thus the termination of their licences by the defendant vide termination notices dated 29th May, 2020 is illegal. Consequently, the plaintiffs in the four suits i.e. CS(COMM) Nos.189, 190 191 and 192 of 2020 inter alia seek a decree of declaration in respect of their status in the shops declaring them owners, execution of the documents of ownership, in the alternative, decree of declaring the licence in favour of the plaintiffs as an irrevocable licence in perpetuity besides injunction. In CS(COMM) Nos. 184 and 185 of 2020 the plaintiffs seek the decree of declaring the plaintiffs owners of irrevocable licenses and declaring them licensees in perpetuity.

(2.) In terms of the practice directions, since intimation of the suits was given to the defendant, learned counsels for the defendant also entered appearance and at the outset raised the objection with regard to the maintainability of the suits under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in view of the clause relating to reference of disputes to arbitration in the licence agreement. Consequently, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this Court has heard learned counsels for the parties both on the issue of maintainability of the suits as also on the interim injunction applications finally at this stage.

(3.) Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in CS(COMM) 189/2020, 190/2020, 191/2020 and 192/2020 contends that the "license agreement" in favour of the plaintiffs was in the nature of creating a right of ownership or in the alternative less than ownership but more than a lease or to say the least was an irrevocable license and thus the notice of revocation dated 29th May, 2020 is non-est. The plaintiffs being the owner and licensee on permanent and perpetual basis of the shop in the Shopping Arcade of hotel Hyatt Regency are in possession and control of the said shop for nearly 40 years. It is contended that merely use of the word licence in the agreements will not make the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant as a mere licence and the plaintiffs cannot be thrown out of the property by merely issuing a revocation notice. The true nature and extent of the rights the plaintiff possessed were far beyond what the law prescribes for a mere licensee, such as, exclusive possession, peremptory right to purchase the property, right to refund of consideration with 10% interest compounded, the payment of mere maintenance charges by the licensee and not payment of any rent, the right to transfer, the right to carry on business at hours suitable to plaintiffs, the insurmountable threshold contained in the agreements required for termination viz. unlawful activity and the defendant's acknowledgements of the rights of the plaintiffs clearly conveys an interest in the property in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs thus claim that the plaintiffs are the owners of the shops/spaces or have an interest more than a lessee or in the alternative they are the irrevocable licensees in perpetuity. Reliance is placed in Associated Hotel of India Vs. R.N. Kapoor, 1960 1 SCR 368, Corporation of Calicut Vs. K. Srinivasan, 2002 5 SCC 361, B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India, 2007 5 SCC 745 and C.M. Beena Vs. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, 2004 3 SCC 595.