This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 1999 before the Court of Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for recovery of plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit. Appellant challenged the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court. Learned Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is whether the courts below are justified in holding that the respondent is entitled to possess the licensed premises by invoking Section 60(5) of the Easements Act, 1882?

4. Facts, in brief, relevant are as follows: Appellant is the owner of plaint A schedule property by virtue of Ext.A2 settlement deed and Ext.A3 partition deed. The property originally belonged to his father Ramakrishnan. Ramakrishnan had obtained a licence for constructing a shed in the plaint A schedule property, from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. As requested by the respondent, appellant's father Ramakrishnan allowed the former to construct a shed in the property as per the plan and licence issued from the Corporation.

5. It was mutually agreed between Ramakrishnan and the respondent that the latter would construct a shed in accordance with the plan and licence issued in favour of Ramakrishnan for conducting a workshop and the respondent should pay a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter the respondent constructed a shed and started an engineering workshop in the premises. Later the property was settled in the name of the appellant. Then the respondent attorned to the appellant. The appellant issued Ext.B2 document in favour of the respondent permitting him to continue occupation in the premises. As per Ext.B2, the term fixed was 15 years from 08.08.1986. Monthly ground rent fixed was Rs. 100/- initially, which is subsequently enhanced to Rs. 600/-. The respondent committed default in paying the ground rent. Hence the appellant initiated the action to evict him from the premises.

6. The respondent filed a written statement contending that the appellant has no authority to evict him. He invested huge amounts for construction of the shed and he is running an engineering workshop therein. He is entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (in short, "KLR Act"). Therefore, the claim of the appellant is not legally allowable. An unspecific plea regarding an irrevocable licence is seen made in the written statement.

7. Courts below rejected the plea raised by the respondent that he is a tenant entitled to get protection under Section 106 of the KLR Act. In order to get the benefit of Section 106 of the KLR Act, it must be pleaded and established that he constructed a building for commercial or industrial purpose before 20.05.1967. Going by the pleadings and evidence adduced before the courts below, it is clear that the appellant's father allowed the respondent to construct the shed only in the year 1984. Therefore, the mandatory prescription under Section 106 of the KLR Act has not been satisfied. The courts below therefore rightly repelled this contention.

8. What is remaining to be considered is the plea of non- evictability based on Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (in short, "Act"). The Section reads as follows:

"License when revocable.-A licence may be revoked by the grantor, unless-

(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force;

(b) the licensee, acting upon the licence, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution."

It is settled law that a licence is revocable unless the case falls under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 60 of the Act. Under Clause (a) if the licence is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force, the licence then would not be revocable. Under Clause (b), if the licensee, act