Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. Savant, J.
MISCELLENARY MARKETERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI - Appellant
Vs.
SUN-N-SAND PVT. LTD., MUMBAI - Respondent
Civil Rev. Appln. No. 331 of 2015 with Civil Appln. No. 295 of 2015
Decided on : 08-01-2016
For the Petitioner: Ms. Zenobia S. Irani
For the Respondent: P. S. Dani,Durgaprasad Sabnis,Ms. Shauna Jain,Lex Firmus
The judgment clarified the distinction between a lease and a license, emphasizing the importance of the terms of the agreement, the intention of the parties, and the control and possession of the premises in determining the nature of the agreement.
Headnote:
Rent Act - Licensee vs. Tenant - Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Easements Act, 1882
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the nature of the agreement between the parties, whether it constituted a lease or a license. The plaintiffs sought possession of the suit premises, while the defendants claimed to be tenants and sought a declaration that the agreement was a lease agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held that the defendants were licensees, not tenants, and decreed the suit. The Appellate Bench confirmed the trial Court's decision and allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiffs, modifying the decree.
Issues: The defining issues were whether the defendants proved that they were tenants in respect of the suit premises and whether the plaintiffs proved that the defendants were their licensees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the evidence, the terms of the agreements, the control and possession of the premises, and the intention of the parties. It concluded that the defendants were licensees, not tenants, and upheld the decree for possession in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Applications were dismissed, and the decree for possession was stayed for eight weeks to allow the applicants to approach the Apex Court.
Admit, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
2. By way of the above Civil Revision Applications the applicants seek to invoke the Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court against the common judgment and order dated 8-5-2015 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by which the Appeals being Appeal No. 16 of 2011 and Appeal No. 17 of 2011 filed by the applicants came to be dismissed and the cross objection No. 3 of 2011 filed by the original plaintiffs came to be allowed and resultantly, the decree passed by the trial Court dated 27-1-2011 came to be confirmed.
Both the above Civil Revision Applications involve common facts which can be conveniently narrated as under :-
3. The Civil Revision applicants are the original plaintiffs in LD Suit No. 59 of 1995 and the defendants in LE and C Suit No. 17/17 of 1996. The respondents are the original defendants in the said LD Suit No. 59 and 1995 and the plaintiffs in LE and C Suit No. 17/17 of 1996. The suit premises is Shop No. 2 admeasuring 200 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the hotel run by the defendants being Sun-N-Sand Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049. The suit premises are more appropriately described in the plaints in the suits filed by the respective parties. The parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status in the eviction suit being LE and C Suit No. 17/17 of 1996. The applicants herein Messrs Miscellenary Marketers would be referred to as the defendants whereas Messrs Sun-N-Sand Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the respondents herein would be referred to as the plaintiffs. The Acts in contention in the above Civil Revision Applications are the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 which for brevities sake would be referred to as the "Rent Act". The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 which would be referred to for brevities sake as the "PSCC Act". The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which would be referred to for brevities sake as the "T. P. Act" and the Indian Easements Act, 1882 which would be referred to as the "Easements Act".
4. The plaintiffs and the defendants are both registered private limited companies registered as such under the Companies Act, 1956. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the first time on 1-7-1988. By the said agreement the plaintiffs had granted a licence to the defendants to sell goods and merchandise in the hotel run by them being Sun-N-Sand. In pursuance of the said licence the plaintiffs had let out the suit premises to the defendants i.e. Messrs Miscellenary Marketers on monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- for a period of 4½ years for selling various goods and merchandise. In terms of the said agreement the defendants paid an amount of Rs. 4500/- as security deposit which was equivalent to three months rent. The said agreement dated 1-7-1988 came to an end on 31-12-1992. Further agreement was entered into on 1-1-1993 for a period of 20 months on the same terms and conditions. After the expiry of the second agreement dated 1-1-1993 a fresh agreement was entered on 1-10-1994 for a further period of one year however with a clause of renewal which agreement according to the defendants was to come to an end on 30-9-1997. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs had given exclusive possession of the suit premises to the defendants and that no duplicate key of the suit premises was with the plaintiffs. Insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned, i.e. Sun-N-Sand Hotel Private Limited, it was their case that since it was not possible for the defendants to supply various articles and things of necessity and utility to its guests, the plaintiffs permitted the defendants to carry on the business of selling and supplying of various goods and merchandise as per the agreement dated 1-7-1988 and thereafter to continue to do so pursuant to the further agreements which were entered into. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the place from which the defendants were permitted to carry on
