Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dt. 17th Nov. 1980. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was a licensee or a tenant and also incidentally the question whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petition in this case. The premises in question belongs to the Bombay City Weavers Co-operative Limited. They filed ejectment proceedings against one Sugrabhai Mohammed Husain, their tenant and obtained a decree. It is stated that the appellant was a monthly tenant of the suit premises since about 2nd Feb. 1965. On or about 9th of February, 1965 a fresh document of that date was executed and it is alleged that the appellant continued by virtue of that agreement. It is alleged that this agreement was entered into between the parties since the respondent wanted to charge more rent or mesne profits. This agreement is in writing and this was for a period of five years, i.e., from 1st Sept. 1965 to 31st Aug. 1970. The main contention involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was a tenant or a licensee ? The answer would be dependent upon the construction of the aforesaid document. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to the said agreement in little detail. The agreement is described as an agreement of leave and licence entered into between the respondent on the one hand and the appellant on the other wherein the respondent had been described as the licensor and the appellant had been described as the licensee and the recitals therein recite that the licensor was seized and possessed of and was otherwise well entitled as the monthly tenant of the workshop premises situated at 231, Ripon Road, Co-operative Building, Bombay, being the premises in dispute, and whereas the licensee had approached the licensor to allow him to occupy and use the said premises for the purpose of carrying out his business of workshop for a period of five years and whereas the licensor had agreed to allow the licensee to use the premises under the said leave and licence of the licensor for a period of five years from 1st Sept. 1965 till 31st of August, 1970, that agreement was being executed. It was stated that the licensor gave and granted his leave and license to the licensee to use and occupy the said premises for the period of five years. Clause 2 of the said agreement recites that the licensee had agreed to use the premises as above and merely for the purpose of workshop business. It further goes on to state that the "licensee shall not under any circumstances be allowed to use the premises for the residential purposes or any other purpose save and except specified therein". The period of leave and licence was to commence from 1st Sept. 1965 to 31st Aug. 1970 and it was further submitted that the licensee and the licensor shall not terminate the said agreement earlier save and except on the ground of breach of any of the terms and conditions written therein. The licensor was entitled to terminate the agreement earlier notwithstanding the fact that the period of the agreement might not have expired. It further stipulated that the licensee should deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- for the due performance of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The said deposit was to be kept free of interest and the same was to be refunded to the licensee on the licensee surrendering possession of the said premises by removing himself and his belongings on the expiry of the period of the agreement or sooner termination or determination thereof after deducting all the dues if any for payment of compensation. It further stipulated that the licensee shall pay to the licensor a monthly compensation of Rs. 225/- per month. It is further stipulated that the licensee would be entitled to keep the keys of the said premises with him and shall be at liberty to work in the said premises for twenty hours subject to restric