A License Under the Indian Easement Act, 1882
The Indian Easements Act, 1882, is a comprehensive piece of legislation that envisions to codify the laws regarding easements and related rights, including licenses. A license, as defined in Section 52 of the Act, refers to a right, to do or continue to do something which would otherwise be unlawful; granted by one person to another person or definite group of persons, in respect of an immoveable property of the grantor. Such a right is exclusive of easements and interests in property.[1] A license is a right in personam.[2]
Anyone who would be willing to and is competent to grant a license may undertake such a transfer of rights in the property.[3] Such a grantor may revoke the license[4], except wherein, firstly, the rights conferred are coupled with a transfer of property and such a transfer is in force; and secondly, wherein the licensee has performed some action or completed a task that cannot be undone or is of a permanent nature, having incurred expenses, acting upon the license.[5] This is elucidated by the terms of grant of a license, and there is nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing expressly or by necessary implication that license nevertheless shall be revocable.[6] The element of ‘acting upon the license’ essentially requires a nexus between the permission granted through the license, and the work being executed subsequently, which confers an effect of permanence and has required the licensee to incur expenses.[7]
Instances on which a License is Deemed to be Revoked
Section 62 of the Indian Easements Act lays down the law with regards to when a license is deemed to be revoked. According to it, a license is deemed to be revoked in nine instances respectively.
Firstly, as per Section 62 (a), when, from a cause preceding the grant of it, the grantor ceases to have any interest in the property affected by the license; a license is deemed to be revoked.[8] This clause is not limited or controlled by Section 60 of the Act, as seen in Kapoorchand vs Lalchand And Ors.,[9] where it was held that even if a licence has become irrevocable under the provisions of Section 60, it shall be deemed to be revoked if from a cause preceding the grant of it, the grantor ceases to have any interest in the property.
Secondly, Section 62 (b) states that when the licensee releases it, expressly or impliedly, to the grantor or his representative, a license is deemed to be revoked.[10] It was held in Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. vs Kerala State Civil Supplies[11] that cogent evidence is a requisite for proving release of a license by the licensee. By proving the abandoning or impracticability of the licence, on the part of the licensee, the ingredients of Section 62 (b), must be established.[12]
Thirdly, according to Section 62 (c) of the Act, 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, a license is deemed to be revoked.[13] This elucidates that at the end of the specified period for which the license has been given, or upon the completion or non-performance of a specific condition or task, the license is deemed to be revoked.[14] It was held in Anandakrishnan vs The Commissioner,[15] that licenses shall be deemed to be revoked after the limited period they were given for, expires. Revocation is deemed also upon fulfilment of, or inability to meet, a condition based on which the license was granted, as held in Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bhishun Narain Inter College.[16]
Fourthly, Section 62 (d) holds that where the property affected by the license is destroyed by superior force or so permanently altered that the licensee can no longer exercise his right, a license is deemed to be revoked.[17]
Fifth, Section 62 (e) states that where the licensee becomes entitled to the absolute ownership of the property affected by the license, the license is deemed revoked.[18] The ownership thus acquired must be absolute and complete, and not of a partial nature.[19] Thus, when the licensee is rendered the owner of the property upon which he holds license under the Act, the license is deemed to be revoked.
Sixth, as per Section 62 (f), where the license is granted for a specified purpose and the purpose is attained, or abandoned, or becomes impracticable, the license is deemed to be revoked.[20] As it was held in Unknown vs Chennai Metro Rail Limited,[21] the completion, or its unlikeliness, will lead to the deemed revocation of the license.
Seventh, Section 62 (g) expounds that 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, a license is deemed to be revoked.[22] Therefore, as held in Kunjamma alias P.J.Aliamma v. R.Sankara Subramanian Thevar,[23] wherein the licensee is removed from service by dismissal or resignation, or such a position is rendered insubstantial, a license granted on its basis would be deemed revoked.
Eighthly, Section 62 (h) states that 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, such a license would be deemed to be revoked.[24] The license must be in disuse for an uninterrupted entirety of twenty years, only then will such a license stand deemed to be revoked, as held in Bhaga And Ors. vs Girwar And Ors.[25] Such a disuse must also not be a result of a contract agreed upon between the grantor and the licensee.[26]
Finally, according to Section 62 (i), in the case of an accessory license, when the interest or right to which it is accessory ceases to exist, the license is deemed revoked.[27] Section 55 of the Act speaks of accessory licenses.[28]
Rights of a Licensee under Revocation
It is important that as a result of such revocation of a license, a licensee does not suffer unjustly. In order to account for this, Section 63 of the Act specifies 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.[29] Such reasonable time is decided on the basis of the facts of the case, and until such time, the licensee may not be considered a trespasser, as held in E.P. George vs Thomas John.[30]
Conclusion
It is pertinent to consider various factors in the matter of deeming a license to be revoked, and its subsequent effect on the rights of the licensee. A license, as set forth earlier, is a right conferred, to do something, which would in its absence, be unlawful. Section 62 and 63 of the Indian Easements Act are of utmost significance in contemplation of the revocation and licensee’s rights ensuing.
[1] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 52; see also Sunikin Bussan (Hong Kong) International Limited v. Manharlal Trikamdas Mody And ING Bank, (2006) 4 Bom CR 131.
[2] S Ramaiah vs Sri K Ramesh Rao, WRIT PETITION Nos. 56773 OF 2013 AND 880-881 OF 2014 (HC Karnataka).
[3] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 53; see also Narsingh Das And Ors. vs Mian Safiullah Sha, (1954) AIR 1954 All 773; Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar, AIR 1922 PC 123 (G).
[4] Heap v. Hartley, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 461 (C); see also Wood v. Leadbitter, (1845) 13 M & W 838 (D).
[5] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 60; see Mohammed Khan vs Ramnarayan Misra AIR 1956 Ori 156; see also Chotey Lal vs Mt. Durga Bai, AIR 1950 All 661.
[6] Ganga Sahai v Badrul Islam, 1942 A. L. J. 386: (A.I.R. (29) 1942 ALL 330); Muhammad Ziaul Haque vs Standard Vacuum Oil Company, 55 CWN 232.
[7] Thayyil Kanissante Valappil vs Bharatha Textiles, Cannur, AIR 1992 Ker 219; see also Skylines Advertising (P) Ltd. vs National Airport Authority And Another, 2005 (6) KarLJ 196.
[8] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (a).
[9] Kapoorchand vs Lalchand And Ors. AIR 1975 Raj 178.
[10] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (b).
[11] Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. vs Kerala State Civil Supplies, AIR 2001 KER 383.
[12] Id.
[13] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (c).
[14] Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bhishun Narain Inter College, 1987 AIR 1242; Panchkuian Road Refugee Vyapar v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation And Another, 130 (2006) DLT 553.
[15] Anandakrishnan vs The Commissioner, Second Appeal (MD) No.1250 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008 (HC Madras).
[16] Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bhishun Narain Inter College, 1987 AIR 1242; see also Sunikin Bussan (Hong Kong) International Limited v. Manharlal Trikamdas Mody And ING Bank, (2006) 4 Bom CR 131.
[17] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (d); see Dhool Singh vs Smt. Bardhu Bai And Ors., AIR 1974 Raj 90.
[18] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (e).
[19] K.R. Krishna Murthy vs Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., 2006 (2) ALD 486.
[20] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (f); see Ram Swarup Gupta v. Bhishun Narain Inter College, 1987 AIR 1242.
[21] Unknown vs Chennai Metro Rail Limited, W.P.Nos.10415 of 2019 (HC Madras).
[22] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (g).
[23] Kunjamma Alias P.J.Aliamma v. R.Sankara Subramanian Thevar, Second Appeal No.672 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 (HC Madras).
[24] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (h).
[25] Bhaga And Ors. vs Girwar And Ors., AIR 1953 All 439.
[26] Id.
[27] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 62 (i); Bai Hanifa Jusab vs Memon Dadu A. Gani, Sardharia, AIR 1964 Guj 44.
[28] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 55.
[29] The Indian Easements Act, 1882, S. 63; see D.H. Maniar & Ors vs Waman Laxman Kudav, 1976 AIR 2340.
[30] E.P. George vs Thomas John, AIR 1984 Ker 224.
This Article is Authored by Bhargavi G Iyer, 2nd Year, BA LLB (Hons), Student of NMIMS Kirit P Mehta, School of Law, Mumbai
Also Read – What Is “Hakka Sod Patra”?
