PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Hardat Rai Parshotam Dass – Appellant
Versus
Roop Lal & Sons – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
This appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019, passed in RCA No.61653/2016, by the Court of Additional District Judge-09 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, dismissing the appellants’/defendants’ appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court vide dated 11.12.2015 in Civil Suit No.167/2003, whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of possession, amount/damages for use and occupation and permanent injunction was decreed.
2. The factual matrix of the case would indicate that the respondents/plaintiffs in their suit had stated that respondents/plaintiffs nos.1 to 3 being the licensors of the shop agreed to give one shop bearing no. 518A, Fasil Road, Lahori Gate, Delhi - 110006, measuring about 30' x 11' to the appellants/defendants on a license basis for license fee of Rs.6,000/- every fortnight i.e. Rs.12,000/- per month.
3. As per the plaint, the terms and conditions of the license were agreed upon between the parties and were reduced in writing vide deed of license dated 01.07.1998. The period of license was 5 years commencing from 01.07.1998 and expiring on 30.06.2003. After the ex
Bholaram v. Ameerchand (1981) 2 SCC 414
C.M. Beena v. P.N.Ramchandra Rao
Captain B.V. D' souza v. Antonio Fausto Fernandes
Delta International Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla and Another
Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra AIR 1988 SC 1858
Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed & Ors
Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal
Jai Singh v. Shakuntala AIR 2002 SC 1428
Kulwant Kaur & Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 262
Narayanan Rajendran and Another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others
P. Chandrasekharan v. S. Kanakarajan (2007) 5 SCC 669
Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokesiri and Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shiv Dayal and Another (2019) 8 SCC 637
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.
The distinction between lease and license must adhere to explicit terms of agreements, with possession alone insufficient to confer tenancy rights.
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 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.
Determination of lease vs licence hinges on the parties' intent and statutory interpretations concerning commercial properties, affirming precedent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the parties, the meaning and words used in the document, and the conduct of the parties are crucial in determining the nat....
The determination of the relationship as licensee or tenant hinges on the parties' intention as reflected in the agreement, not merely on exclusive possession.
‘Lease’ is a transfer of a right coupled with exclusive possession with transfer of interest to enjoy an immovable property for certain period expressly, impliedly or in perpetuity.
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.