Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, S. V. N. BHATTI
General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving lease and possession disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal observations and findings from trial and appellate courts. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. distinction between lease and licence as per law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. conclusion on document interpretation leading to illegal cancellation of lease. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling to allow civil appeal with no costs. (Para 22 , 23) |
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 – | ||
(1) Decisive consideration in determining whether an agreement creates relationship of lessor and lessee or merely that of licensor and licensee is intention of parties – This intention has to be asc....
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.
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.
Owner of immovable property on termination of license is entitled to maintain suit for mandatory injunction against licensee to vacate property.
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.
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
