The judgment clarifies the distinction between lease and license, emphasizing the requirement of exclusive possession and transfer of interest to establish a lease.

COMMON JUDGMENT

R.S.A.No.895 of 2020 has been filed under Order XLII Rule

1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the decree and judgment in A.S.No.153/2016 dated 10.11.2020 on the files of District Court, Kottayam arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.520/2014 dated 10.06.2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. The appellant herein is Sri C.D.Varghese, the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.520/2014.

2. The respondents are the sole defendant as well as the 1st plaintiff.

3. Sri C.D.Varghese, who is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.565/2014, has filed R.S.A.No.835/2020 challenging the decree and judgment in A.S.No.154/2016 dated 10.11.2020 on the files of District Court, Kottayam arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.565/2014 dated 10.06.2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/C.D.Varghese as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Joseph Mani.

5. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as `C.D.Varghese & another.’ and `Joseph Mani’ hereafter for convenience.

6. Perused the judgments under challenge, the documents and precedents placed by the learned counsel for C.D Varghese and another.

7. O.S.No.520/2014 is a suit filed by C.D.Varghese and another seeking declaration that they have been running “Olympus Tours and Travels” in the plaint schedule rooms as tenants for the last 18 years; mandatory injunction to unlock the rooms and removing the obstruction in doing the business and prohibitory injunction against forceful removal of them from the rooms, which, according to them, they have been occupying as tenants.

8. Resisting the suit, Joseph Mani filed written statement as well as O.S.No.565/2014 seeking the reliefs of mandatory injunction directing C.D.Varghese and another, who are the licensees, to vacate the rooms and also claiming Rs.7,000/- per month as damages for the use and occupation of the plaint schedule rooms from 23.07.2014. The learned Munsiff tried both the suits jointly treating O.S.No.520/2014 filed by C.D.Varghese and another as the main case.

9. During trial, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of C.D.Varghese and another. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B11(b) were marked on the side of Jospeh Mani. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2 were marked as court exhibits.

10. The learned Munsiff having scrutinised the evidence and after appraising the rival contentions raised by the parties, granted decree as under:

“(a) O.S.No.520/2014 is decreed partly. Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint scheduled room by force, causing any kind of obstruction to the business therein and disconnecting any amenities to the plaint scheduled rooms.

(b) The prayer for declaration and mandatory injunction in O.S.520/2014 are disallowed.

(c) O.S.565/2014 is decreed partly. Decree of mandatory injunction is passed and the defendants are directed to vacate the plaint scheduled premises and to remove their belongings from there within 3 months from today. On their failure to obey the decree, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get them evicted through the process of the court.

(d) Plaintiff in O.S.565/2014 shall be entitled to realise Rs.7,000/- towards damages for the occupation of the plaint scheduled premises from 23.07.2014 till the institution of the suit. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to realise future damages @ Rs.266/- per day from 23.07.2014 till they vacate the premises.

(e) Defendant in O.S.520/2014 and plaintiff in O.S.565/2014 shall be entitled to the cost in both the suits.”

11. Challenging the said common verdict, 2 separate appeals were filed as A.S.Nos.153 and 154 of 2016 before the District Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional District Judge heard both the appeals together and finally confirmed the verdict of the trial court and thereby appeals were dismissed.

12. The specific case of C.D.Varghese and ano