A licensee at will cannot seek restoration of possession through a writ of mandamus.

The Appellant is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926

Since 30.05.2018, the Appellant occupied premises owned by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) under a license granted for union activities

On 12.11.2025, the Corporation issued an eviction notice providing ten days to produce documents

The Appellant alleged that despite the notice period extending to 22.11.2025, they were forcibly evicted by Corporation officers on 19.11.2025

The Appellant filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus in the nature of a mandatory injunction to restore possession of "Room No. 16"

The Writ Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present Intra-court appeal

1. Whether the Appellant established a subsisting legal right to occupy the premises that would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus for restoration of possession under Article 226

2. Whether a factual dispute regarding the identity of the allotted premises versus the claimed premises can be adjudicated within the summary jurisdiction of a Writ Court

The court primarily applied the principles governing the issuance of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that discretionary relief cannot be granted to protect a right that has not been legally established

It further relied on the legal distinction between a lease and a license, observing that a licensee occupies property at the will of the owner and possesses no inherent right to remain against the owner's wishes once the license is revoked

The court also considered the limits of mandatory injunctions in writ jurisdiction, specifically that such relief is unavailable when it necessitates a factual inquiry into property descriptions or possession

The Court observed that the Appellant's prayer for restoration of "Room No. 16" conflicted with the original allotment letter of 2018, which specified a space "between the canteen and Room No. 17"

This discrepancy created a factual dispute unsuitable for writ jurisdiction

The court found that the 2018 allotment was a bare license without fixed terms or conditions, making the Appellant’s occupation subject to the "will of the Corporation"

The Appellant failed to produce evidence of paying rent or charges that would suggest a higher legal interest than a mere licensee

Regarding the allegation of forcible eviction, the Court noted that the Appellant failed to provide material evidence to substantiate the date of dispossession

The Court highlighted the Appellant's delay in pursuing the appeal, which remained unregistered for two months after filing

The Court took note of the Corporation's statement that the premises are currently being utilized for administrative offices, further complicating any restoration of possession

The Court held that the Appellant failed to justify any legal right over the premises as they were a licensee at will and had paid no consideration for the occupation

Consequently, the prayer for a writ of mandamus to restore possession was denied

The Court also disposed of all pending civil applications accordingly