JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of reversal passed by learned Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/87 allowing appeal of plaintiff-respondent and thereby decreeing his suit, the defendant-appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction against appellant with the averments that vide agreement dated 2.12.1973 which was executed between him and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore, a Gumti ad-measuring 6'x6' was installed by him at Keshar Bagh road on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the document of agreement. According to the plaintiff, in the agreement, inter-alia, one condition has been stipulated that at any time Gumti could be removed and the lease would come to an end, if it is in the interest of public or State or for any purpose of the Court. According to plaintiff, defendant/Municipal Corporation sent notice Ex. P-5 on 30.8.1977 to plaintiff to remove the Gumti, hence the plaintiff after having served notice under section 401 (Ex. P-6) on 3.9.1977 filed suit for injunction against the defendant. 3. On behalf of defendant written statement was filed in which the pleadings of plaintiff were refuted. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and denial in the written statement, framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 5. The plaintiff by assailing the judgment and decree dismissing his suit, filed appeal before learned first appellate Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and the suit has been decreed. 6. In this manner, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant -appellant. 7. This Court on 8.2.1988 admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether permission to occupy road parti to the respondent, give the respondent any vested right in the road patri? and, Whether the lower appellant Court was right in granting perpetual injunction against the appellant in face of obstruction caused to the public road?" 8. 7. This Court on 8.2.1988 admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether permission to occupy road parti to the respondent, give the respondent any vested right in the road patri? and, Whether the lower appellant Court was right in granting perpetual injunction against the appellant in face of obstruction caused to the public road?" 8. The contention of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since on account of heavy traffic where the Gumti is installed, it has become hazardous to public at large, therefore, notice has been given to the plaintiff to shift his Gumti to a better place i.e. Nemi Nagar and, therefore, learned first appellant Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit. 9. On the other hand, Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondent, in his usual vehemence opposed the contention of learned counsel for appellant and has submitted that since specific condition has been embodied in the agreement Ex. P-2, therefore, defendant cannot deviate from the condition mentioned in the said document and if that would be the position, for no rhyme or reason the judgment of first appellate Court can be set aside. On these premised submissions, it has been contended by learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent that this appeal sans substance and the same be dismissed. Regarding substantial question of law No.1: 10. Admittedly, the place where Gumti is installed, is the land of Municipal Corporation and in view of section 366 only licence is given to the plaintiff to instal a Gumti. In this context, section 366 of the Municipal Corporation Act is very much clear and, therefore, document Ex. P-2 is nothing, but a licence. It is well settled in law that licence can be revoked at any moment of time and, therefore, even if the some condition is mentioned in the document of licence, would in itself not confer any vested right in the plaintiff to carryon the business on the road by keeping the Gumti. The substantial question of law No. 1 is, thus, answered accordingly. Regarding substantial question of law No.2: 11. Since the nature of document Ex. The substantial question of law No. 1 is, thus, answered accordingly. Regarding substantial question of law No.2: 11. Since the nature of document Ex. P-2 by which the plaintiff is deriving the right to occupy the Gumti is nothing but is a licence which can be revoked at any moment of time, therefore, I am of the view that learned first appellant Court erred in substantial error of law in granting the decree of perpetual injunction. Since it has come in the statement of defendant's witness Manak Chand Patodi (DW 1) that several residential accommodations have been constructed nearby the Gumti, therefore, it can be inferred that for public purpose notice Ex. P-5 was given by the Municipal Corporation directing the plaintiff to remove the Gumti from the disputed place and was directed to shift it in the Nemi Nagar. Substantial question of Law No.2 is, thus, answered accordingly. 12. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the suit of plaitiff is hereby dismissed. However, defendant-appellant is hereby directed to abide by the condition stipulated in Ex. P-5 and provide a suitable place to the plaintiff to install the Gumti at Nemi Nagar. If it is not possible to provide the suitable place at Nemi Nagar, the place equivalent to the said vicinity be provided to the plaintiff. It is, however, made clear that till the alternative place in Nemi Nagar or equivalent to that locality is not given to the plaintiff, he shall not be dispossessed, if already not dispossessed. Looking to the facts and circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.