Mandamus for restoration of possession is unavailable to a licensee lacking a vested legal right to occupy.

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

Since May 30, 2018, the Appellant occupied premises within the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) under a license to facilitate union activities for staff benefits

On November 12, 2025, the SMC issued an eviction notice providing ten days to produce documents

The Appellant alleged that SMC officers forcibly evicted them on November 19, 2025, prior to the expiration of the notice period

The Appellant filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for restoration of possession of "Room No. 16," which the Writ Court dismissed

The present Intra-court appeal challenges that dismissal.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus in the nature of a mandatory injunction for restoration of possession can be granted under Article 226 when there is a factual dispute regarding the identity of the premises

2. Whether a licensee has a vested legal right to occupy municipal property against the will of the owner-corporation

3. Whether the Writ Court erred in holding that the scope of Article 226 does not extend to declaring rights over premises where no legal right or payment of rent was established

The Court applied the principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, observing that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving factual inquiries or enforcing contractual licenses lacking statutory protection

It relied on the legal nature of a "license," which grants no interest in the property and remains subject to the "will of the owner"

Furthermore, the court implicitly followed the principle that mandatory injunctions require the petitioner to establish a clear, existing legal right, which is absent in a bare license for which no rent or charges are paid

The Court observed a material discrepancy between the premises described in the 2018 allotment letter ("space between canteen and Room No. 17") and the premises for which restoration was sought ("Room No. 16"), concluding that such factual ambiguities cannot be resolved in a writ proceeding

The Court reasoned that the Appellant was a mere licensee at the will of the Corporation; as the license contained no protective terms and no rent was paid, the Appellant lacked any legal right to resist eviction once the owner's will was withdrawn

Regarding the allegation of high-handedness and premature eviction, the Court found no evidence on record to substantiate the exact date of dispossession

Additionally, the Court noted the Appellant's delay in pursuing the appeal and the fact that the Corporation had already converted the space into administrative offices, rendering the prayer for restoration moot

The Court affirmed the Writ Court’s decision, stating that the declaration of rights and restoration of possession in these circumstances fall outside the scope of Article 226

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly