( 1 ) THIS is a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No. 548/83, dated April 9, 1991 whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been held entitled to a decree for possession in respect of premises No. C-243, Defence Colony, New Delhi and has also been held entitled to damages @ Rs. 1,500. 00 per month for the use and occupation of the premises by the appellants-defendants from the date of institution of the suit till the possession is delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

( 2 ) RESPONDENT is the owner of house No. C-243, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The respondent and appellant No. 1 entered into a leave and licence agreement, Ex. P 62, in respect of the premises in question.

( 3 ) BY virtue of the agreement the first appellant was given licence to use the premises for residence of any employee and his family or for purpose of company s residential house for a period of three years commencing from April 11, 1977 and ending on April 10,1980. Under the agreement the first appellant agreed to pay Rs. 1,100. 00 for the use and occupation of the premises,rs. 100. 00 for the fittings and Rs. 200. 00 for the garage and Rs. 100. 00 for facility of telephone provided to it by the respondent. The aforesaid compensation of Rs. 1500. 00 was required to be paid by 7th of each calender month. The agreement further stipulated that on the expiry of the period of licence the licensee will vacate the premises. In spite of the expiry of period of licence, the first appellant and its officer, second appellant failed to vacate the premises. Since the appellants did not vacate the premises, the respondent gave notice to the first appellant inviting its atten tion to the fact that the licence to use the premises came to an end on April 10,1980 and its occupation and that of its officer, the second appellant (second defendant in the suit) after that date was unlawful and illegal. The notice called upon the first appellant to vacate the premises and pay compensation @ Rs. 3,500. 00 per month from April 10,1980 till the service of the notice and also pay future compensation @ Rs. 5,200. 00 per month. The notice did not evoke any favourable response with the result that the respondent filed the suit on April 11, 1983 for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises and for payment of compensation for use and occupation thereof on the ground that the appellants had no right to remain in occupation of the premises on or after April 10,1980, when the licence to use the premises expired. The appellants opposed the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the agreement dated April 11, 1980 though described as leave and licence agreement was actually a lease agreement, which created relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the first appellant. The trial court examined the agreement, the statements of the witnesses and the documents produced by the parties and came to the conclusion that the agreement was one of leave and licence.

( 4 ) BEFORE us the question is whether the agreement confers a status of a licensee or a lessee on the first appellant. In order to determine the question it will be necessary to examine the relevant recitals in the agreement, Ex. P. 62.

( 5 ) IN the agreement, the respondent is called as the licensor and the first appellant is described as the licensee. By virtue of clause 1 of the agreement the first appellant was granted permission to use the premises for the residence of its employee and his family or for the purpose of company s residential house. As per clause 3 the licence was granted for a period of 3 years commencing from April 1, 1977 and ending on April 4, 1980. The agreement also records that the respondent will have full possession and control of the premises. In this regard it will be necessary to refer to clause 7 of the agreement which makes the aforesaid stipulation:-

"that no