ORDER : 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.11.2024, in C.M.A.No.120 of 2023, passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard Ms. Vankina Allu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed the aforesaid C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 30.10.2023, in I.A.No.175 of 2023 in O.S.No.652 of 2023, passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.2 claims himself to be the absolute owner and possessor of the plot admeasuring Ac.0-12 guntas in Survey No.55, situated in Karmanghat Village, Hyderabad East Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-500074. The property came into his possession following the demise of his father on 17.10.1997. In April 2013, B. Vijay Kumar, the managing partner of M/s.Vijayalakshmi 70MM, the respondent herein approached petitioner No.2 with a proposal to use the property as a parking area for their multiplex (M/s Vijayalakshmi 70MM), as it was conveniently located on the south-west boundary of their multiplex. Following the repeated requests of the respondent, the petitioner No.2 finally granted permission to use the property imposing the following conditions: “a) License fee of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per month and the same shall be deposited in two parts in the bank accounts of the Petitioner and his wife, i.e. Petitioner No.1. b) The License fee shall be paid on or before of 10 th of every month through bank transfer. c) The nature of the property cannot be changed by the Respondent in any manner as it is only a permissive possession and actual possession is always with the Petitioner who is the landowner.” 5. This arrangement continued smoothly for approximately ten years with the respondent making payments for the months the property was used. In the year 2021, a significant development took place wherein the petitioners successfully obtained Layout Regularization through proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021, to put the property for better use. Subsequently, in March 2023, the petitioner No.2 informed the respondent about his plans to utilize the property for other purposes. In the year 2021, a significant development took place wherein the petitioners successfully obtained Layout Regularization through proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021, to put the property for better use. Subsequently, in March 2023, the petitioner No.2 informed the respondent about his plans to utilize the property for other purposes. Initially, the respondent requested three months’ extension and which was granted by the petitioner No.2 until June, 2023 and further extensions were also provided till August, 2023 out of goodwill, despite the respondent's attempts to purchase the property. 6. However, instead of vacating the property as agreed, the respondent filed O.S.No.614 of 2023 on 15.09.2023 before the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. When the respondent failed to obtain an ad-interim injunction in his favour, he withdrew the suit on the very next day i.e. 21.09.2023, even before the notices could be served on the petitioners. Moreover, the respondent immediately filed another suit O.S.No.652 of 2023 with identical contents and prayers and also filed an I.A.No.175 of 2023 for ad-interim injunction. The said I.A. was dismissed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge on 30.10.2023 citing lack of prima facie case and absence of bona fides. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a Miscellaneous Appeal vide C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 before the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge and which was allowed granting injunction in his favor and restraining the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit schedule property. 8. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant Revision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the agreement with respondent No.2 was strictly a limited license for car parking purposes only and which was granted upon request by the respondent with certain conditions. Further, the respondent maintained continuous possession of the suit schedule property since April, 2013 and utilized the space for parking vehicles during specified hours of operation who visited the respondent’s multiplex which is part and parcel of the license and this arrangement was established purely as a neighborly accommodation considering their proximity since the year 2005. This was a clear case of a license and there has been no agreement executed in this regard. 10. This was a clear case of a license and there has been no agreement executed in this regard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a license fee arrangement of Rs.30,000/- was in place until August 2023 with regular payments made by the respondent and the petitioner No.2 not raising any plea of default from the respondent. Later in the year 2021, the petitioner No.2 regularized the suit scheduled property under the Layout Regularization Scheme vide proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021. It is further submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner No.2 informed the respondent in the month of March, 2023 that he has plans to use the property for different purpose. It is further submitted that although the respondent requested for three months’ extension, the petitioner, acknowledging their long-term relationship, permitted to use until August, 2023. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it clearly indicates the termination of this arrangement and the petitioner also returned the license fees for September and October 2023, as evidenced by documented transactions (Reference No. 000277027640 and 000280271961). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Appellate Court had failed to appreciate the documented development plans and their approach to terminating the license agreement is highlighted as a significant oversight. Moreover, the Appellate Court erroneously characterized their actions as sudden and forceful, despite evidence of their approach spanning several months from March to August. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the Appellate Court failed in holding that the respondent satisfied the three principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, since the respondent’s documentary evidence of any lease agreement makes their prima facie case weak. Secondly, the balance of convenience as per the respondent’s contention clearly favours the petitioner who has obtained necessary development permissions and has legitimate plans for development of the property. Thirdly, the respondent’s unauthorized continuation on the premise post-license termination caused substantial commercial loss by preventing the planned development activities. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the procedural irregularities in the legal approach of the respondent, particularly regarding filing of O.S.No.652 of 2023, which appears to be a duplicate of a previous suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 filed without following the mandatory procedures under Order XXIII Rules 1(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the procedural irregularities in the legal approach of the respondent, particularly regarding filing of O.S.No.652 of 2023, which appears to be a duplicate of a previous suit i.e. O.S.No.614 of 2023 filed without following the mandatory procedures under Order XXIII Rules 1(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This deliberate omission, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners represents a serious breach of the legal procedure and a calculated move of the respondent to mislead the Court. 14. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and to allow the instant Revision. 15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent opposing the Revision, contended that they have maintained continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property for parking vehicles since 2013 and throughout this period they have consistently honored their financial obligation by paying a monthly license fee of Rs.30,000/- which shows their commitment to the agreement. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that their substantial investment in establishing and maintaining their business operations at the location, including necessary infrastructure and customer relationships shows more of permanent nature and their business has become an integral part of the local commercial ecosystem, serving numerous clients who rely on their vehicle parking services. 16. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the communications from March, till August, 2023 were informal as the petitioners failed to follow the mandatory legal requirements, particularly noting the absence of proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also argued that the adverse impact of the petitioners alleged attempts to remove tin sheets and other structures from the premises, characterize these actions as harassment and intimidation. This action, they contend, was not only illegal but also in direct contravention of the established legal principles regarding proper eviction procedures. Furthermore, it was argued that the return of license fees for September and October 2023 was a unilateral action that cannot be construed as proper termination of their occupancy rights. 17. This action, they contend, was not only illegal but also in direct contravention of the established legal principles regarding proper eviction procedures. Furthermore, it was argued that the return of license fees for September and October 2023 was a unilateral action that cannot be construed as proper termination of their occupancy rights. 17. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contended that the any sudden disruption in parking arrangements would severely impact their business operations and potentially would lead to significant financial loss and damage to their reputation and their business requires careful planning for any transition, and immediate eviction would cause irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated through monetary means. Thus, they asserted for their right to reasonable time and opportunity to arrange alternative parking facilities ensuing business continuity and minimal disruption to their theater operation. 18. Thus, for all aforesaid reasons, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant Civil Revision Petition. 19. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Court has committed a serious error in law by misinterpreting the nature of possession. The relationship between the parties was clearly that of a licensor and licensee agreement, which was evidenced by the monthly payment structure, specific conditions of use and the explicit understanding that the actual possession remained with the petitioners. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that a license is fundamentally different from lease and which is merely a permission to do something on the licensor’s property, would otherwise be unlawful. The license agreement specifically prohibited any changes in the nature of the property and maintained the petitioners’ actual procession. Moreover, the Appellate Court overlooked the well-established principle that a license is revocable at the will, subject to the reasonable notice, which in the instant case, the petitioners had abundantly provided through multiple extensions from March 2023 to August 2023. 20. Initially, the respondent had filed O.S.No.614 of 2023. But it was immediately withdrawn the next day since the respondent failed to obtain any interim orders. The respondent immediately filed O.S.No.625 of 2023 with identical cause of action and prayer, while deliberately suppressing information about the previous suit, amounting to forum shopping. 20. Initially, the respondent had filed O.S.No.614 of 2023. But it was immediately withdrawn the next day since the respondent failed to obtain any interim orders. The respondent immediately filed O.S.No.625 of 2023 with identical cause of action and prayer, while deliberately suppressing information about the previous suit, amounting to forum shopping. It is clearly evident that the respondent has abused the judicial process when the Appellate Court failed to consider his initial suit and this conduct is particularly egregious as it violates the fundamental principle that a person seeking equitable relief must come to Court with clean hands. Furthermore, even if the arrangements were to be incorrectly considered as a lease, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that a lease for purposes such as parking vehicles, neither for manufacturing nor agricultural purpose, would be deemed month-to-month, terminable by fifteen days' notice. The petitioners in the instant case did provide notice far exceeding this statutory requirement. For ready reference and better understanding, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is reproduced hereunder: “ 106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. (1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.” 21. The Appellate Court fundamentally erred by granting an injunction despite the respondent’s failure to satisfy the three essential requirements for such a relief. The respondent failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, as its status was admittedly that of a licensee. The property owner, on the other hand, had obtained Layout Regularization vide Proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021, clearly indicating their intention and right to put the property for different purposes. The balance of convenience decidedly lies in favor of the petitioners who have followed due process by giving multiple notices and extensions. The property owner, on the other hand, had obtained Layout Regularization vide Proceeding No.LRS06012021100609, dated 06.01.2021, clearly indicating their intention and right to put the property for different purposes. The balance of convenience decidedly lies in favor of the petitioners who have followed due process by giving multiple notices and extensions. The claim of irreparable injury is untenable as the respondent being a commercial enterprise had ample time to make alternative parking arrangements and, in fact, he should have looked for a permanent solution from the beginning itself. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to allow the instant Civil Revision Petition. The order dated 12.11.2024, in C.M.A.No.120 of 2023, passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is set aside/quashed. The III Additional Junior Civil Judge, seized of O.S.No.652 of 2023, shall make all endeavors in deciding the suit itself on merits at the earliest, without granting any unnecessary adjournments. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.