Back
SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
Pradip Dhar – Appellant
Versus
Anil Karmakar (Deceased), Represented By Smt. Supriya Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff granted license for property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant claims to be tenant, opposing license agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments made by appellant regarding nature of agreement. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. counterclaim status impacts appeal's viability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 6. final dismissal of appeal without cost. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by learned 10th Court, Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 153 of 2008, affirming thereby the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 193 of 2003.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.
3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff being the owner of the suit property granted leave and licence to the defendant to possess the suit property and for that they entered into an agreement dated 29th December, 1997 for a period of five years commencing from 1st February, 1994 which would continue till the last da
Determining the nature of a property agreement hinges on its substance over form, with legal protections applicable only if established tenant status exists.
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.
A licensee, unlike a tenant, does not deserve any notice. Mere filing of the suit is sufficient to hold that the license has been revoked.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prevents a licensee from denying the title of the licensor during the continuance ....
A licensee whose license has expired cannot claim protected tenant status under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, and tenants are estopped from questioning the landlord's title during eviction proc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of estoppel against tenants or lessees in possession, as embodied in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which....
The appeal upheld that expired leave and license agreements do not confer tenant rights; occupancy post-expiration was considered trespassing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
