A defaulting sub-licensee who disregards court-ordered payments is disentitled to discretionary writ relief.

The petitioner held a sub-licence over commercial, parking, housekeeping and toilet space at Ramanagara Bus Station under a deed dated 1 August 2015; the head licence had been granted by KSRTC to the petitioner’s licensor.

After a demand for licence-fee arrears, the petitioner challenged KSRTC’s termination of the licence in an earlier writ petition. The Court had directed payment of ₹25 lakh and dues from January 2025, but the petitioner did not pay the subsequent licence fees; that petition was dismissed on 18 August 2026, with the Court finding the licence validly terminated for default.

In the present petition, the petitioner challenged his forcible eviction and sealing of the premises, contending KSRTC had to proceed under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1974.

Whether KSRTC was required to follow the procedure under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1974, before securing the premises following termination of the licence

Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ relief, including restoration of possession, in light of the termination and his unpaid licence-fee obligations

Section 62(c) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, permits revocation of a licence in the circumstances contemplated by that provision.

Relying on Managing Director, Central Offices, Transport House, KSRTC v. N. Rajarathnam, the Court stated that the Public Premises Act procedure is not required where a licence is revoked because possession of licensed premises remains with the licensor and does not pass to the licensee; following revocation, the licensee may be treated as a trespasser, and the licensor may prevent continued occupation.

The Court also applied the principle that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner’s conduct—here, continued occupation without payment despite a court direction—does not warrant equitable relief.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s licence had already been terminated for non-payment and that, in the earlier proceeding, he had failed to comply with the direction to pay dues from January 2025.

It also recorded the prior finding that he had remained in unauthorised occupation without paying licence fees.

In addressing the argument that KSRTC had to invoke the Public Premises Act, the Court relied on Rajarathnam, which held that the Act’s procedure need not be followed where a licence is revoked and possession remains with the licensor.

In view of the petitioner’s default and the prior findings, the Court held that his conduct disentitled him to discretionary writ relief.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.