A licensee who has made constructions and incurred expenditure on the licensed land is not entitled to protection from eviction under Section 60 of the Easements Act, 1882, or the principle underlying it, if the constructions were not made or the expenditure incurred in accordance with the terms of the license.

( 1 ) THESE are two appeals by the two contending parties against the same judgment of the lower appellate court.

( 2 ) THE suit was a suit for eviction on the ground that the defendant was a licensee in respect of the disputed properly under the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested and the defence set up a claim of rival title to the disputed property and denied that he was a mere licensee. A further plea was raised that he had erected valuable constructions on the disputed land at considerable costs and so could not be evicted therefrom.

( 4 ) THE suit was decreed in part by the learned trial Judge, who held that me defendant was a licensee, and rejected his rival claim of title but disallowed the plaintiff's prayer for recovery of possession upon the view that the defendant having erected permanent structures and incurred considerable expenditure in respect of the same, he was protected from eviction, even if he was a licensee upon the principle, underlying Section 60 of the Easements Act, even though the said Act was not applicable.

( 5 ) RELIANCE for this purpose was placed upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mathuri v. Bhola Nath, AIR 1934 All 517.

( 6 ) FROM this decision of the learned Munsif, both parties appealed--the plaintiff against the refusal of the decree for recovery of possession and the defendant against the rejection of his claim of rival title. These two appeals were dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Munsiff's decision was affirmed. The matter is now before this Court in the present appeals,--one by the plaintiff against the rejection of his claim for recovery of possession, the other by the defendant against the refection of his claim of rival title.

( 7 ) ON the point of title, in view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below, and having regard to the nature of the question, involved in the point, in the circumstances of these cases, the matter must be held to be concluded against the defendant by reason of the said concurrent finding and, accordingly, his appeal (S. A. No. 1202 of 1960) must be dismissed, though without costs.

( 8 ) ON the other point, the courts below have, merely because of the fact that certain constructions have been made by the defendant on the land, held by him under the license and some expenditure has been incurred by him in that connection, extended to him the protection, which, according to them, was available under Section 60 of the Easements Act, on the principle, underlying that section, as the said statute was. admittedly, not applicable in this State.

( 9 ) IN my view, this does not appear to have been a proper approach to the problem, involved in this part of the rase. It is true that the defendant has erected some pucca structures and has spent some money for the same, but it is hardly a proper inference to hold that the same was done by him acting on the license or within the terms of the license, granted by the plaintiff or his predecessor. In this view, even the principle, underlying the aforesaid statutory provision, would not apply, as the statute requires such act on the part of the licensee, acting on the license. From this stand-point, even the view of this Court, as expressed in Surnomoyee Peshakar v. Chunder Kumar Das, (1910) 12 Cal LJ 443, and Moti Lal v. Kalu Mandar, 19 Cal LJ 321: (AIR 1914 Cal 173 ). would not help the defendant and the latter would not be entitled even to compensation, far less to any protection from eviction. I may add here that on the point of protection of licensees from eviction, the above decisions of this Court seem to go against the view of the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1934 All 517, and it may very well be contended, in view of these authorities, that, even when the licensee has made constructions and incurred expenditure, acting on the license, if the statute was not applicable, it may not be open to the court to apply the prin