The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'unauthorised occupation' under S.2(f) of the Act includes the case of a licensee after the expiry or termination of the authority for occupation granted under the licence.

1. Leave granted.

2. The judgment impugned in this appeal has been passed by Kerala High Court in a second appeal whereby the same has been allowed, appellate decree, upholding that of the trial court dismissing the suit, set aside and the suit has been decreed.

3. The short facts are that the appellant corporation, which was established by an Act promulgated by Kerala Legislature, owned a building constructed by it in the year 1972 and immediately after construction the plaintiff-respondent was put in its occupation as a licensee on payment of licence fee at the rate Rs. 4325/- per month wherein he was running a lodging house as well as a restaurant. As the plaintiff-respondent defaulted in making payment of licence fee, the licence was terminated on 1.3.1989 whereafter the plaintiff's continuance in occupation of the building in question became unauthorised leading to issuance of a notice by the estate officer under S.4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was duly served upon the plaintiff-respondent, requiring him to show cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him in view of the fact that his occupation became unauthorised within the meaning of S.2(f) of the Act inasmuch as the licence granted in his favour was terminated. Thereupon, on 23.6.1989 the estate officer after satisfying himself that the building was in unauthorised occupation of the respondent passed an order of his eviction therefrom. The said order of eviction was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent before the civil court by filing a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from evicting the plaintiff from the building pursuant to the aforesaid order of eviction stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and not licensee and in case he was found to be a licensee, his occupation could not be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of S.2(f) of the Act, as such the estate officer could not have assumed jurisdiction and passed order of eviction. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a licensee and not a lessee, that occupation of licensee after termination of the licence became unauthorised within the meaning of S.2(f) of the Act, as such the estate officer was quite competent to pass an order of eviction and the suit was barred under S.15 of the Act.

4. The trail court dismissed the suit observing that it was not necessary to go into the question as to whether the transaction was lease or licence as even if it was a case of licence, the same was covered by the provisions of S.2(f) of the Act, the estate officer had jurisdiction to decide the matter and pass an order of eviction and consequently, the suit was barred under S.15 of the Act. On appeal being preferred, the trail court's decree was affirmed with a finding that the transaction in question was licence and not lease. Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondent filed a second appeal before the Kerala High Court which allowed the same, set aside judgment and decree passed by the appellate court upholding those of the trial court and decreed the suit on the ground that the estate officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and pass order of eviction under the provisions of the Act as occupation of the plaintiff-respondent cannot be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of S.2(f) of the Act as case of licensee is not covered therein and consequently the bar created by S.15 of the Act did not operate. Challenging decision of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed by special leave.

5. Shri T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of appeal submitted that case of a licensee is covered by S.2(f) of the Act and the High Court was not justified in holding otherwise and decreeing the suit on the ground that the estate