1 CRA 1070/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1070 of 2010 Shri Madan Mohan Chandrabhan ... Applicant versus Vatsal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.... Respondent ... Mr. Navin Parekh and Ms.Hetal Patel for the applicant. Mr.R.S.Upadhyay for respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 13th January 2011. P.C. 1. Mr. Upadhyay appears for respondent and waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. This civil revision application is directed against a judgment and order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing an appeal of the revision applicant (for short “the applicant”) and thereby confirming the order of dismissal of an application for interim injunction passed by the trial court. 2 CRA 1070/10 3. The respondent is the owner of the property which consists of a plot of land bearing no.398, S.V. Road, Kandivli (W), Mumbai on which the respondent has constructed a residential building for its members. By an agreement of licence dated 18 July 2000, the respondent society granted permission to the applicant for erection of a hoarding in the open space of the society. Permission was valid for a period of 10 years. According to the respondent society, the period of licence expired on 18 July 2010 and therefore, it called upon the applicant to remove the hoarding. The applicant thereafter filed a suit (L.C.Suit No.91/10) in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for an injunction restraining the respondent society from removing the hoarding. In the said suit, the applicant applied for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from removing the hoarding till the disposal of the suit. By an order dated 25 August 2010, the trial court dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 12 November 2010. That order is impugned in this revision application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that period of licence of 10 years did not commence from the date of execution of the licence dated 19 July 2000 but was to commence from the date of first display. According to the counsel, the first display was made on 1 March 2001 and therefore the licence was valid till 28 February 2011. Hence, the Courts below erred in coming to the 3 CRA 1070/10 conclusion that the period of licence had expired and erred in not granting an injunction to the applicant. 5. Clause (2) of deed of licence dated 19 July 2000 is material and reads thus: TENURE The Tenure/Period of the Permission hereby granted shall, unless otherwise determined earlier as provided in this instrument be of 10(ten) years, the First of such year to be a period of 12(Twelve) months from the date of the First Display (such display to include announcement or Display of the hoarding etc or of earlier of them being available for Advertisement) and each and every subsequent year to be the period of 12 months calculated accordinglly. 6. Bare perusal of clause (2) would show that the licence was to be valid for a period of 12 years from the date of first display of the advertisement. Since the advertisement was first displayed on 1 March 2001, the licence is valid till 28 February 2011. The respondent society therefore cannot remove the hoarding prior to 4 CRA 1070/10 28 February 2011. In my view, therefore, the trial court erred in refusing the injunction altogether but ought to have granted an injunction limited upto 28 February 2011. Consequently, the impugned order is required to be set aside and limited injunction is required to be granted. Hence I pass the following order: O R D E R 7. Revision Application is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. 8. Respondent society is restrained by an order of injunction from removing the hoarding until the period of expiry of licence i.e. till 28 February 2011. Needless to say that injunction shall stand vacated at the end of 28 February 2011. (D.G.KARNIK, J)