IMPORTANT POINT
The expiration of a license agreement negates claims for recovery of possession, especially when the plaintiff admits to vacating the premises.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 111 of 2003, dated 10.09.2004, on the file of Second Additional Sub-Judge, Tiunelveli confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 257 of 2000, dated5.8.2003, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 111 of 2003, dated 10.09.2004, on the file of Second Additional Sub-Judge, Tiunelveli confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 257 of 2000, dated 5.8.2003, on the file of Second Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for declaration that the notice of eviction issued by the defendant on 13.05.2000 was null and void and for recovery of possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court by filing this Second Appeal.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property situated within Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli and the same was let out to him by the respondent/Corporation for conducting a petty shop. It was asserted by the plaintiff that he has been paying rent to the defendant without any default or failure and all of a sudden, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on 13.5.2000 terminating the licence on the ground that the plaintiff had violated the terms and conditions of the order granting licence. It was also asserted that the notice issued by the defendant was void abinitio. Hence he was constrained to file a suit seeking declaration that the notice issued by the defendant was null and void. Intially, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction. Subsequently, the prayer was amended to include the prayer for recovery of possession instead of injunction, on the averment that the defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit property in the first week of August 2001.

4. The defendant filed a written statement claiming that the plaintiff was granted licence to conduct a petty shop in the suit property and the licence period was already over. It was also claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff earlier approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition to protect his possession and the same was dismissed. Suppressing the same, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff. It was also claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff failed to conduct the shop personally and had allowed a third party to occupy the premises and hence, licence granted in his favour was terminated and notice for eviction was issued. On these pleadings, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, two witnesses were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. Five documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the defendant, one witness, the Regional Assistant Revenue Officer of the respondent Corporation was examined as DW-1 and two documents were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.

6. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief as sought for in the suit and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 111 of 2003, on the file of Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant/Plaintiff is before this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a lessor-lessee relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and hence the notice issued by the defendant treating the plaintiff as a licensee, is not at all valid. The learned