Section 60(b) of the Easements Act renders a license irrevocable where the licensee builds a house on a portion of the land granted and uses the remaining portion as sehan appurtenant to the house.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants second appeal arising out of suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of a piece of land measuring 20 x 6 north south and 13 x 10 east west. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the suit has been decreed by the learned District Judge, Mirzapur. Hence the second appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the plaint case was that one Amresh Chand Pandey, the admitted owner and Zamindar of the land granted a piece of land measuring 45 x 6" north south and 13 x 10" east west on parjawatdari (license) on payment of Re. 1/- annually in June 1956 in favour of the plaintiff. The license was granted to the plaintiff with a right to construct a house thereon. In pursuance of that licence, the plaintiff constructed a pacca house over a substantial part of the land granted to him. He wanted to construct over remaining part of the land also and with that end in view foundation was laid, for the same but the same was left unbuilt by the plaintiff and is being used as his sehan appurtenant to the house constructed by him. In the year 1971, however, the Zamindar and his co-sharers granted a lease in favour of the defendant, who started interfering with the plaintiffs possession, which led to the initiation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court Which the defendant found to be in possession over the vacant land referred to above immediately prior to the date of attachment under that provision. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested on the ground that the defendant was in possession under valid lease granted to him by the Zamindar. The plaintiff did not derive any right, title or interest over the land in question and that the licence, if any, granted in favour of the plaintiff stood revoked in consequence of the lease granted in favour of the appellant.

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant-appellant was in possession of the disputed land as lessee thereof. The plaintiff, therefore, could not claim any relief against the defendant. The suit was accordingly, dismissed.

( 5 ) THE appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court. The findings recorded by the appellate Court are that the land measuring 45 x 6" north south and 13 x 10" east west had been granted to the plaintiff under a licence for constructing a pukka house and acting upon that licence, the plaintiff did build a house over an area measuring 25 north south and 13 x 10 east west. The remaining portion was, however, left to be utilised as Sehan for the beneficial enjoyment of the house; though even over this part of the land too, there was evidence of foundation having been dug. That being so, the lower appellate Court concluded, the S. 60 of the Easements Act was attracted. The result was that the grantor could not revoke the licence.

( 6 ) SRI Saran Behari Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant contends that even if it would be assumed that some kind of licence was granted to the plaintiff-respondent by the erstwhile Zamindar, S. 60 of the Easements Act shall have no application in so far as the unbuilt portion of the land granted to the plaintiff is concerned. Learned counsel submitted that S. 60 is applicable only in respect of that area of the land, over which the plaintiff constructed a house and not the remaining part of the land granted to him; consequently, it was open to the grantor to execute a registered lease in favour of the defendant, which would have the effect of overriding the licence.

( 7 ) I am unable to agree. A some what identical situation came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Azahar Husain v. Mansab, reported in 1940 All LJ 354. The question raised there was whether S. 60 (b) of the Easements Act could be pressed in and in respect of that portion of the land which is left by the licensee unbuilt and which is used by him as his Sehan Darvaja. There the licensee had instituted the suit for restraining t