JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Defendant No. 1/petitioner has filed present petition asailing the order dated 21.6.2014 assed by Civil Judge (J.D.) in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2000, The Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and anr. V. M/s Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. & another, whereby ad interim injunction application moved by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, herein, was allowed by the learned Trial Court restraining the defendant no. 1/petitoner, herein to interfere in the working of the plaintiff over the travel desk laying in the lobby of the Manu Maharani Hotel directly or indirectly or tagents as well as against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2014, whereby ad interim injunction granted by the Trial Court was confirmed. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff/respondent no. 1, herein, filed OS No. 30 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nainital against defendant no. 1/petitioner, herein, as well as against defendant no. 2, namely, Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust seeking perpetual injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained in removing the travel desk of the plaintiff from the hotel lobby shown by words ‘A,B,C,D’ in the annexed map. An application seeking ad interim injunction was also moved along with the plaint. As per the plaint case, Smt. Pushpa Katoch and her son Anirudh Singh Katoch are the Directors of the plaintiff company; Smt. Pushpa Katoch is also one of the Directors of defendant no. 1/petitoner, herein, defendant no. 1 company is running hotel in the name and style of M/s Manu Maharani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., of which earlier Smt. Lata Chauhan, Smt. Hemlata Singh, Smt. Saroj Jamwal and Smt. Pushpa Katoch were Directors; in the year 2000, other Directors, namely, Smt. Lata Chauhan, Smt. Hemlata Singh and Smt. Saroj Jamwal resigned from the directorship of the company and sold their holdings in favour of third persons; thereafter new Directors, namely, Smt. Pushpa Katoch, Sri Rakesh Jain, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Ravindra Kumar and Sri Atul Jain were also appointed as Managing Director of the hotel company; plaintiff company was permitted by the then Directors of defendant no. 1 company to establish and run travel desk in the lobby of the hotel, therefore, after the change of the management, defendant no. 1 company to establish and run travel desk in the lobby of the hotel, therefore, after the change of the management, defendant no. 1 cannot interfere in the business of travel desk being run by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, amendment was permitted in the plaint and by way of amendment the plaintiff stated that entire property belongs to Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust and the part of the property, wherein hotel is situated and is being run is also a part of the trust property; Directors of petitioner company are also the beneficiaries of the trust/defendant no. 2, therefore, being the beneficiary of the Trust they are otherwise entitled to run the business of travel desk in the lobby of the hotel. Defendant no. 1/petitioner, herein, filed written statement as well as reply to the ad interim injunction application and has stated that first of all no such permission as alleged by the plaintiff was granted; even if same was granted, it was void and stood revoked the moment management of hotel was changed. It was further denied that the property, wherein the hotel is situated and is being run belongs to Trust i.e. defendant no. 2. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff company is not running any travel desk business in the hotel lobby. Defendant no. 2 also filed written statement. It is stated by defendant no. 2 in the written statement that defendant no. 1 was illegally let into possession of the Grassmere Estate Trust Property by some of the beneficiaries, however, defendant no. 1 has neither any right nor any title over the property in dispute. It is further stated that the suit is pending disposal between the Trust and Manu Maharani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for eviction. Learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court observed in the impugned judgments that travel desk is admittedly lying in the hotel lobby, therefore, plaintiff has prima facie case. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1/petitoner, herein, preferred present writ petition. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that he is appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 as well as defendant/respondent no. 2, proforma respondent. Mr. Anirudh Singh Katoch, who is a practicing Advocate and also claims himself to be Managing Director of the plaintiff company is also heard along with Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that he is appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 as well as defendant/respondent no. 2, proforma respondent. Mr. Anirudh Singh Katoch, who is a practicing Advocate and also claims himself to be Managing Director of the plaintiff company is also heard along with Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents. To issue ad interim injunction, learned court has to see as to whether there exists any prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and as to whether if ad interim injunction is refused, plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss. It is now well settled principal of law that unless and until court finds prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, no injunction can be issued in favour of the plaintiff. Let me now examine as to whether all the three ingredients of the ad interim injunction are available in favour of the plaintiff. At one place, plaintiff is claiming that plaintiff company was granted permission by the then Directors of defendant no. 1 company to run the travel desk business in the hotel lobby, yet at another place, plaintiff is saying that Directors of the plaintiff company are beneficiaries of defendant no. 1, therefore, being beneficiaries of the defendant no. 2/Trust has every right to run travel desk business in the lobby of the hotel i.e. defendant no. 1. Mr. Anirudh Singh Katoch, Advocate who is also the Managing Director of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 fairly submits that as on day his mother Smt. Pushpa Katoch is also not the Director of the defendant company although she has some shares in defendant no. 1 company. Section 59 and Section 62 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 read as under : “Section 59 - Grantor's transferee not bound by licence. - When the grantor of the licence transfers the property affected thereby, the transferee is not as such bound by the licence. Section 62 - License when deemed revoked. 1 company. Section 59 and Section 62 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 read as under : “Section 59 - Grantor's transferee not bound by licence. - When the grantor of the licence transfers the property affected thereby, the transferee is not as such bound by the licence. Section 62 - License when deemed revoked. - A licence is deemed to be revoked- (a) when, from a cause preceding the grant of it, the grantor ceases to have any interest in the property affected by the licence; (b) when the licensee releases it, expressly or impliedly, to the grantor or his representative; (c) 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; (d) where the property affected by the licence is destroyed or by superior force so permanently altered that the licensee can no longer exercise his right; (e) where the licensee becomes entitled to the absolute ownership of the property affected by the licence; (f) where the licence is granted for a specified purpose and the purpose is attained or abandoned, or becomes impracticable; (g) where the licence is granted to the licensee as holding a particular office, employment or character, and such office, employment or character ceases to exist; (h) where the licence 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; (i) in the case of an accessory licence, when the interest or right to which it is accessory to exist.” As per mandate of Section 59, if grantor of the licence transfers the property then transferee is not bond by such licence granted prior to such transfer. As per Section 62 (a) of the Act, if grantor of the licence ceases to have any interest in the property affected by the licence, the license shall be deemed to have been revoked. The main case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff company was granted permission (licence) to run travel desk business in the lobby of the hotel by the erstwhile Directors of the hotel company i.e. defendant no. 1 and admittedly those Directors are no more Directors of defendant no. 1 company. The main case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff company was granted permission (licence) to run travel desk business in the lobby of the hotel by the erstwhile Directors of the hotel company i.e. defendant no. 1 and admittedly those Directors are no more Directors of defendant no. 1 company. Not only this, there is another aspect of the matter. Smt. Pushpa Katoch, who is Director of the plaintiff company and was also Director of defendant no. 1 company, therefore, cannot enjoy both the capacity of licensor and licensee. Therefore, permission, if any, would have been granted by other Directors of the defendant company who have already sold entire shares in favour of present Directors. Therefore, in view of Section 59 as well as Section 62 (a) of the Indian Easements Act alleged permission/license stood revoked. It is settled position of law that after the revocation of the license, the licensee becomes trespasser because license is a permission to enjoy the property and after revocation of the license, licensee has absolutely no legal right to enjoy the property in any manner. Therefore, applying the principle that no injunction can be issued in favour of the trespasser or unauthorized person against the true owner, no prima facie case can be said in favour of the present plaintiff. Let me now examine as to whether being beneficiary of Trust/defendant no. 2, Directors of the plaintiff company can run the business of the travel desk in the lobby of the hotel of defendant no. 1? As observed hereinbefore, the case of defendant no. 2 is that some of the beneficiaries of the Trust have handed over possession of the part of the hotel to defendant no. 1 illegally. If some of the beneficiaries have handed over possession to defendant no. 1 illegally, other beneficiaries of the Trust cannot be permitted to enjoy the same property as the beneficiary. Undisputedly, Manu Maharani Hotel is being run by the present management of defendant no. 1 company. Defendant no. 1 company has denied that hotel is a part of property of Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust. Not only this, it is nowhere stated in the plaint as to whether Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust has ever established any hotel. On the other hand, the heirs of Sri Thakur Dan Singh Bist, who are the founder Directors of defendant no. 1 company has denied that hotel is a part of property of Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust. Not only this, it is nowhere stated in the plaint as to whether Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust has ever established any hotel. On the other hand, the heirs of Sri Thakur Dan Singh Bist, who are the founder Directors of defendant no. 1 company, established the hotel and started running it and thereafter transferred their shares in favour of third party. Therefore, now it does not lie in their mount to say that property of the hotel is a part of the trust property. Had it been the part of the Trust property, they would have no right to transfer the same to the third persons as it was done in the present case. Therefore, no balance of convenience is found in favour of the plaintiff. Since, hotel is being run by the present management of defendant no. 1, therefore, a third person cannot be allowed to use the lobby of the hotel, which would amount to irreparable loss to the defendants. Consequently, all the three ingredients for granting ad interim injunction are not found in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are hereby quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. CLMA No. 10056 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.