IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 expiry of 5 year period, the respondents/plaintiffs claimed to have intimated the appellants/defendants that they were no longer interested in continuing with the license and accordingly, requested to surrender the actual physical and vacant possession of the shop in question. Since the respondents/plaintiffs realised that the appellants/defendants had no intention to hand over the actual physical and vacant possession of the shop in question on the expiry of the license period, therefore, respondents/plaintiffs served them a legal notice on 29.05.2003.

4. It was the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that vide notice dated 29.05.2003, the license of appellants/defendants was also terminated. It was also the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that despite service of the termination notice dated 29.05.2003, the appellants/defendants did not hand over the actual physical and vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondents/plaintiffs. According to the plaint, appellants/defendants with a mala fide intention, despite service of termination notice of license, illegally sent the cheque dated 02.07.2003 purportedly qua the payment of rent of Rs. 12000/- which, however, was returned to the appellants/defendants.

5. The suit was accordingly filed for possession, arrears of license fees for June 2003 at the rate of Rs.12,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards damages for use and occupation charges for the period from 01.07.2003 to 15.07.2003 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., and decree for permanent injunction etc.

6. The aforesaid civil suit was contested by the appellants/defendants on various grounds. It was claimed that the shop in question was given to the appellants/defendants on a lease basis in perpetuity against a monthly rent of Rs.6000/- much prior to 01.07.1998, which was increased to Rs.12,000/- per month. The license deed was claimed to be wrong, misconceived, and fabricated and was allegedly signed without free consent and by way of fraud and under the undue influence of the respondents/plaintiffs. The same was sought to be treated as void ab initio, inadmissible and unenforceable.

7. The Trial Court after completion of the pleadings, framed the issues and after recording the evidence, vide its judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015, decreed the civil suit directing the appellants/defendants to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the shop in question along with damages/mesne profits. Paragraph no.13 of the relief granted to the respondents/plaintiffs reads as under:-

"13. ISSUE No.9. RELIEF. In view of the findings given on issues no.l to 8, documents placed on record, pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiffs have proved their case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the sui