IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Rajendra Sirohia – Petitioner
Versus
Amitava Gupta & Anr. – Respondents
S.A. 29 of 2012
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Leave and License Agreement - Tenancy Disguised as License - Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 52 of the Indian Easement Act - [Section 105, Section 52]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a licensee and filed a suit for eviction. The defendant contended that he was a tenant and denied the allegations. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment. The Second Appeal was admitted by the Division Bench, framing the substantial question of law regarding the nature of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the agreement and its renewals, finding that they were temporary in nature and did not grant any interest in the property. The court considered the intention of the parties, the terms of the agreement, and the conduct of the parties. It concluded that the agreement was a leave and license agreement, not a tenancy agreement. The court decreed the suit for eviction against the defendant.
Issues: Nature of the agreement - Whether the defendant was a licensee or a tenant
Ratio Decidendi: The substance of the document must be preferred to the form to determine whether it creates a lease or a license. The intention of the parties and the nature of the rights granted are crucial. The court must consider the terms of the agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the true nature of the agreement.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit for eviction against the defendant, directing them to vacate the premises within 60 days.
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23rd August, 2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 9th court Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 150 of 2009, present second appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment learned court below set aside the judgment and decree dated 31st March 2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit no. 19 of 2002.
2. Plaintiffs/Respondents herein instituted aforesaid Title Suit no 19 of 2002 contending that the suit premises originally owned by one Satyandra Chandra Gupta, who during his lifetime bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiffs. After taking probate of the will, plaintiffs became absolute owner of the property. Original defendant was known to the plaintiff, who approached the plaintiff in the month of April 1987 for temporary accommodation in the suit property comprising of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room one kitchen and two bathrooms cum privy and considering his difficulties the plaintiff allowed the original defendant to reside in the suit property on payment of licence fee of Rs.2000/-per mensem which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 4000/-. Plaintiffs’ further case is said licence for accommodation was purely on temporary basis initially for eleven months and thereafter licence was extended from time to time till 31.03.1999. The defendant has not paid any amount from April 1999 and left for his native place at Rajasthan. Thereafter plaintiff discovered that the said defendant put one Mahendra Kumar Surana in his place in the suit property. The plaintiff thereafter issued notice upon defendant through their advocate on 05.03.2001, thereby revoking the licence and as the defendant failed to quit and vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff was compelled to file the aforesaid suit for eviction.
3. The defendant on the other hand appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying all material allegations levelled against him in the plaint. According to defence case, he was inducted initially by the plaintiff as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs, 1000/-and subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/-per month. The defendant never defaulted in paying rent. By that time the defendant felt ill and his daughter and his son-in-law started residing with him. The defendant specifically denied that he was inducted as a licensee. On the contrary defendant contended that in spite of payment of rent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff never bothered to issue rent receipt to him. Accordingly defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleading, the Trial Judge has framed following issues:
2. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action to file the suit?
3. In what capacity the defendant is residing in the suit property?
4. If the defendant is a licensee, then whether such licence was renewed by the plaintiff?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any decree as prayed for?
6. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to get.
4. Trial Court heard the said suit on the aforesaid issues and by a judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009, was pleased to dismiss the said Title Suit being no. 19 of 2002 against the plaintiff/respondent, on the ground that original licensee had already left the suit flat after putting some third person in possession of the suit flat, so passing decree of eviction of licensee against defendant/licensee would be infructuous in the eye of law.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred appeal being aforesaid Title Appeal no 150 of 2009, which was heard by learned Additional District Judge 9th court, Alipore. Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to allow the Appeal in favour of the Plaintiff/Responded herein and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
Ayan Chatterjee Vs/ Future Technology Foundation Inc. & Ors.
C.M. Beena and another Vs. P.N. Ramachandra Rao.
Capt. B.V. D’Souza Vs. Antonio Fausto Fernandes
Delta International Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla and another
Dipak Banerjee Vs. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty
Kumaresh Mazumder Vs. Smt. Binapani Sarkar and others
R.N. Dutta Vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. & another
Rekha Mukherjee & anr. Vs. Anjana Aditya
Smt. Rajbir Kaur and another Vs. M/S S. Chokesiri and Co.
Tarumoni Mondal and others Vs. Prafulla Kumar Mondal and others
The substance of the agreement, the intention of the parties, and the nature of the rights granted are crucial in determining whether an agreement creates a lease or a license.
The intention of the parties, as expressed in contractual language, determines the distinction between a landlord-tenant relationship and that of a licensor-licensee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of exclusive possession, intention of the parties, and the language used in the agreement in determining the jural relationship be....
The determination of the relationship as licensee or tenant hinges on the parties' intention as reflected in the agreement, not merely on exclusive possession.
The distinction between lease and license must adhere to explicit terms of agreements, with possession alone insufficient to confer tenancy rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the substance of an agreement over its form, considering the intention of the parties, and applying the common law p....
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.
Determining the nature of a property agreement hinges on its substance over form, with legal protections applicable only if established tenant status exists.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.