The determination of the relationship as licensee or tenant hinges on the parties' intention as reflected in the agreement, not merely on exclusive possession.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant /defendant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court Calcutta, on 17.02.2007 in Title Suit No. 1086 of 1999.

2. Through the aforementioned Judgment the Ld. Trial Judge has been pleased to pass decree in part on contest.

3. Through the lis the respondents/ plaintiffs have prayed for eviction of the appellant/defendant from one double room in the ground floor along with common bath and privy at premises No. 3, Beadon Street, P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata.

4. The Ld. Trial Judge passed the decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit property by evicting the defendant and has also been pleased to pass decree for Rs. 2400/- as arrear licence fees and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month till the date of recovery of khas possession of the suit property.

5. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ defendant during his argument has submitted the following:

(i) The appellant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises by the respondents during the month of July 1983 at a monthly rent of Rs 400/- and subsequently the said rent was raised to Rs. 600/- per month.

(ii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant was being granted rent receipts for paying rent from July 1986 onwards.

(iii) The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the appellant is not at all a licensee.

(iv) Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the agreement dated 01.05.1996 was fraudulently made by coercion to avoid the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(v) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant does not know English and the said agreement was not read over the explained to the appellant.

(vi) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant has been residing in the suit property as a tenant since the year 1983.

(vii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the respondents have let out the suit premises exclusively in favour of the appellant and the respondents have no control over the same.

(viii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that licence does not grant any interest in the land while the purported agreement created interest in the suit property in favour of the appellant.

(ix) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is that of tenant and landlord and not of licensee and licensor.

(x) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant is in occupation of the suit property since 1983 without payment of any rent and the respondents had not taken any action against the appellant for eviction during the entire period.

(xi) The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that in case of license the licensor only grants the right to the premises without exclusive possession thereof. He has further submitted that in the instant case the respondent has given exclusive possession of the suit premises in favour of the appellant in lieu of fixed rent, thus tenancy has been created between the respondent and the appellant.

(xii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that he has received telephone connection from the telecommunication department which proves that he is not a licensee but a tenant having interest over the suit property.

(xiii) The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments which are reported as follows:

(a) AIR 1959 SC 1262

(b) AIR 1968 SC 175

(c) (1974) 1 SCC 202

(d) 2023 SCC Online Cal 798

Ban