The legal possession and ownership of the property remained with the plaintiff during the subsistence of the licence, and the plaintiff was entitled to seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant after the termination of the licence.

1. The short facts necessary For the disposal of this appeal by the defendant can be easily stated. The suit building of which only the southern room is in dispute belongs to the plaintiff-respondent. On 3-7-1970 the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement Ext. Al by which the defendant was allowed to use the southern room which faces the K. K. Road for his plastic business on a consideration of Rs. 550/-a month or 6 per cent of the total business turnover whichever was higher. The agreement was for a term of 3 years in the first instance and the parties were at liberty to extend it. Skipping the other clauses which have no relevancy, Clause.11 provided that if owing to any difference of opinion, the parties found it difficult to continue the arrangement it could be terminated by either party giving one month's notice.

When the arrangement ceased for any reason whatsoever, the defendant should not cause any interference to the possession and business of the plaintiff. The 12th and last clause stated that the legal possession and ownership of the building should be with the plaintiff during the subsistence of the agreement. The term of the agreement came to an end on 3-7-1973. On 6-7-1973 the plaintiff issued a notice terminating the agreement on the expiry of one month and asking the defendant to settle the accounts. In reply the defendant sent an envelope which according to the plaintiff, contained only a blank sheet of paper. It reached the plaintiff on 4-8-1973. When informed about this the defendant sent a reply Ext. A6 on 22-8-1973 claiming inter alia that he was a tenant and that Ext. Al was a lease deed. On 18-9-1973 the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs 2860/-with interest at 6 per cent from 3-7-1973, being the arrears of amount due to him under Ext. Al. settlement of accounts, recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/-a month from 3-7-1973 till the defendant vacated the room after removing his articles, a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove his articles and a prohibitory injunction restraining him from trespassing into the room and interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

2. The defendant resisted the suit on a variety of contentions of which the principal defence was that Ext. Al was a lease.

3. The trial court rejected this defence and held that Ext. Al was only a licence. While holding in favour of the plaintiff that Ext. Al is only a licence the court rejected his claim for Rs. 2860/-in the view that it was not supported by sufficient proof. The court accordingly passed a decree directing the defendant to remove his articles within 2 months, with a provision that in default the plaintiff could get them removed through court. It restrained the defendant by a perpetual injunction from trespassing into the room or interfering with the plaintiff's possession. It allowed the plaintiff Rs. 500/-a month till the date of decree and thereafter for 3 years or till the defendant vacated the premises whichever event first occurred. The plaintiff was directed to set off Rs. 1100/-that had been advanced to him by way of security and allowed to recover only balance.

4. The defendant appealed from this decision and the plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross-objections against the denial of Rs. 2860/-.

5. The lower appellate court formulated two questions which concerned the nature of the transaction and the plaintiff's right to get Rs. 2860/-. On the first point the court agreed with the Munsiff that Ext. Al was only a licence and not a lease as pleaded by the defendant. It however disagreed with the Munsiff on the second point and held that on the evidence and probabilities the plaintiff's case was true. On these findings he dismissed the appeal and allowed the memorandum of cross-objections, both with costs.

6. In the course of the judgment the lower appellate court has observed that the defendant was in exclusive possession of the southern room. The appeal was admitted on the