Point of Law : Agreement - Lessor, lessee, premium and rent - Merely because the title of the agreement is ‘leave and license agreement’, it would not mean that the petitioner necessarily has to be treated even prima facie as a licensee’.

JUDGMENT :

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. These two writ petitions have been filed by the original plaintiff. By Writ Petition No.3440 of 2020, the petitioner has challenged concurrent orders passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Court, rejecting prayer for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. Writ Petition No.3635 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order rejecting an application for amendment of plaint. According to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed and that an order of temporary injunction also needs to be passed in favour of the petitioner.

4. On 31/12/2018, the petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent. The petitioner placed on record a leave and license agreement executed between the parties and by relying upon the same, prayed for a decree for restraining the respondent from demolishing the suit building and/ or raising a new construction, apart from claiming that the respondent was not entitled to dispossess the petitioner. On the same day, the petitioner also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction, seeking an order to restrain the respondent from demolishing the building in question during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner stated that since it was running a college in the said building, wherein about 600 students were pursuing various courses, a case for grant of temporary injunction was made out.

5. On 16/01/2019, the respondent filed its written statement to the plaint, as well as reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction. The respondent stated that the Small Causes Court before whom the suit had been filed, had no jurisdiction in the matter, considering that the reliefs claimed were beyond the ambit of the leave and license agreement. On 14/11/2019, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of plaint, seeking to incorporate paragraph 6A to 6H in the plaint. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to introduce relationship of landlord – tenant between the respondent and the petitioner.

6. On 30/12/2019, the Small Causes Court rejected the application for amendment of plaint on the ground that allowing the amendment would amount to changing the very nature of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3635 of 2020. On 23/07/2020, the Small Causes Court rejected the application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Court rendered finding to the effect that the petitioner had failed to make out prima facie case in its favour. The Court distinguished between a document of leave and licence from a lease agreement to reach the said finding. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court. By the judgment and order dated 09/09/2020, the Court of Adhoc District Judge – 2, Nagpur, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the findings rendered by the Small Causes Court. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3440 of 2020 to challenge the said concurrent orders passed against it.

7. This Court directed both the writ petitions to be heard together. On 22/12/2020, this Court issued notice in Writ Petition No.3635 of 2020, whereby the order of Small Causes Court rejecting the application for amendment was challenged. On the same day, this Court issued notice for final disposal in Writ Petition No.3440 of 2020. This Court recorded the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that even if the agreement in question was titled as a leave and license agreement, in substance it was a lease agreement. On this basis, this Court granted interim relief of status-quo, subject to the condition that