The distinction between a lease and a license hinges on the intention behind the agreement and the extent of interest in the property transferred.

JUDGMENT

The above appeals were filed against the common judgment in A.S.Nos.149/2011 & 195/2011 on the file of III Additional District Court, Kozhikode, arising out of common judgment in O.S.No.334/2009 & 400/2007 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.400/2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.334/2009. O.S.No.400/2007 has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the defendant in O.S.No.334/2009 with respect to the plaint schedule property belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff has been conducting a proprietary concern in the name and style “M/s.CEECO Industries” in the plaint schedule building, according to him, as a tenant. The building was taken on lease on 10.05.2003 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- and also on payment of security deposit of Rs.30,000/-. The building was taken on lease from the second defendant who prepared a licence agreement as against the actual entrustment and plaintiff was asked to sign in the agreement and it was told that for the purpose of avoiding payment of stamp duty that it has been prepared as a licence agreement. So according to him the actual arrangement was lease and not licence and monthly rent was enhanced periodically and the present rent is Rs.1,650/-. Appellant/ plaintiff was allowed to use the side room as a godown. Plaintiff obtained a licence from panchayat from 2003 - '08 and obtained Labour Registration from Labour Office, Feroke. Plaintiff is conducting industrial unit in the shed taken on lease from the second defendant. He has no other income for his livelihood and no other suitable building is also available in the locality to conduct the business. During rainy season, due to leakage of water, electric board got wet and complaint was made to the second defendant. But damage was not repaired and the relationship between the parties has become strained and defendant obstructed the employees on 23.11.2006 from coming to the shed and beat the plaintiff and again trespassed to the shed on 24.11.2006. When the defendants demanded enhancement of monthly rent to Rs.5,000/- that was not accepted by the plaintiff and from January, 2007 onwards plaintiff sent the rent by way of money order. Hence police complaint was filed and ultimately the suit was filed for a perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from illegally evicting or dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property by force without recourse to law.

3. Defendants filed written statement contending that the shed was taken on a license arrangement for a period of 11 months by fixing the monthly license fee as Rs.1,250/- and paying Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit. The license was given without creating any interest and possession of the building was with the first defendant. Plaintiff signed the license agreement fully knowing the contents. On termination of the license agreement, defendants orally informed the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule building. Plaintiff is making all these allegations to continue in the plaint schedule building. The defendants already issued lawyer notice directing to vacate the premises terminating the licence on 24.11.2006.

4. O.S.No.334/2009 was filed for injunction and recovery of possession against the plaintiff in O.S.No.400/2007. All the contentions in the written statement regarding the licence arrangement is reiterated. Plaint schedule property is the same as in O.S.No.400/2007. It is also contended that the defendant has not paid any amount towards licence fee for the use and occupation of the building after 01.06.2007 that is after sending the notice directing to vacate the building. The plaintiff has no job and is depending on her husband for her livelihood and the husband has got financial difficulties. Plaintiff intend to start a chapel business in the plaint schedule building as a godown of the business. Since the period stipulated in the li