S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PANKAJ MITHAL, S. V. N. BHATTI
General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Rutwik Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondents.
3. The Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2022 in RSA No. 123 of 2021 (for short, “impugned judgment”) in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 100/524 of 2011-2005 (for short, “Civil Suit”) before the Court of Civil Judge, Baripada, is the Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 2, respectively, in the Civil Suit.
4. The subject matter of the Civil Appeal is described in Schedule – ‘A’ of the plaint, which is detailed as below (for short, “Plaint Schedule Property”):
| “SCHEDULE – ‘A’< |
The distinction between a license and a lease is determined by the intention of the parties, as reflected in the deed, rather than merely the possession of the property.
Determination of lease vs licence hinges on the parties' intent and statutory interpretations concerning commercial properties, affirming precedent.
An unregistered lease deed cannot establish tenancy or enforce property rights, as it violates mandatory registration laws.
The distinction between lease and license must adhere to explicit terms of agreements, with possession alone insufficient to confer tenancy rights.
The employer was at liberty to allot any other flat to the employee on his transfer to another station and assign the premises fallen vacant by virtue of transfer to any other employee.
The intention of the parties, as expressed in contractual language, determines the distinction between a landlord-tenant relationship and that of a licensor-licensee.
A lease must be explicitly stated as permanent to be considered as such; otherwise, it is interpreted as a lifetime tenancy, allowing for the reversion of possession upon the death of the lessee.
A suit for cancellation of a permanent lease made nearly 76 years prior is barred by limitation if no notice was given, and leases with valuable consideration fall outside Section 10 of the Limitatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article