The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'lease' and 'license', the rights and obligations of a licensee, and the concept of attornment of tenancy rights to a paramount owner.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. This is the defendant's second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 29-5-1987 passed by the Additional District Judge. Neemuch to the Court of District Judge Mandsaur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 70-A of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1980 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Neemuch, in Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1977.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 20-1-1988 on following substantial questions of law :-

(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court was right in holding that the appellant is in occupation of the premises in suit as a licensee and not as a sub-tenant?

(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit for eviction of a sub-tenant, whose tenancy is in contravention of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is maintainable?

(3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the defendant, when he has attorned to the paramount owner and has been paying rent to the temple authorities?

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has been died and his legal representatives have been brought on record, Meerabai, the plaintiff, has also been died and her legal representatives have been brought on record. For the sake of convenience in the judgment parties will be referred as in the original suit. Plaintiffs, widow of Bansilal, his sons and daughter, filed a suit for ejectment and permanent injunction. Subsequently, vide amendment, they also sought relief of possession and mesne profits. The plaintiffs pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Bansilal and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 5 are sons and daughter. Husband of the Plaintiff No. 1 got a shop on rent of the ownership of the Respondent No. 2, a temple, on 1-8-1964 on a yearly rent of Rs, 72/-. Thereafter, he made some Pakka constructions. Subsequently, in the north of the shop, Bansilal in the year of 1987 got certain Municipal land on lease and installed some tin sheds. On 27-1-1971, Bansilal got permission from the Municipal Council to install a flour mill (Aatta Chakki) in the shop. On 5-2-1971 he deposited license fees and because he was busy in other work, he appointed the defendant No. 1 as his servant. It was agreed that the defendant No. 1 would pay Rs. 6/- per day to Bansilal, he would deposit electricity bill and bear other expenses of the flour mill and keep rest of the amount with him. The aforesaid arrangement had been continued up to 11-1-1974 when Bansilal died and after his death up to 30-10-1976 the defendant paid the amount of Rs. 6/- per day to the representative of the plaintiffs, Shri Krishanchandra. Thereafter, he stopped the payment of amount and a report to the police was lodged and thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

4. The defendant No. 1 denied the claim of the plaintiffs. He also challenged the locus of the plaintiffs to file the suit. He further pleaded that the shop was given by Mr. Bansilal to him as a sub-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- and he installed the flour mill after purchasing the same from another person. After the death of Bansilal, he entered into a lease of tenancy with the defendant No. 2, owner of the shop, and he was paying rent to the Defendant No. 2, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief.

5. The learned trial Court has held that the flour mill was of the ownership of Bansilal and he had given it on sub-lease the suit shop and the flour mill to the defendant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 180/-. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled to institute the suit proceedings and as per the provisions of section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act sub-tenancy cannot be created without permission of the landlord hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and dismissed the suit.

6. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment the plaintiffs filed appeal. The learned Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that