A licence is revocable if it is not coupled with a transfer of property or the licensee has not incurred substantial expenses for permanent work, confirming the primacy of contractual agreements. Revocation upheld despite construction of a permanent structure.

1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction on the strength of title. Though the plaintiffs took the stand that Ext. A-1 agreement is for a lease and not a licence, both the courts below have found that it is only a licence and not a lease. But both the Courts below concurrently found that the plea of the defendant that Ext. A-1 agreement amounted to an irrevocable licence under S.60(b) of the Easements Act, is without any substance and that the Trial Court accordingly, decreed the suit, which has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

2. The plea of the defendant is that Ext. A-1 amounts to an irrevocable licence and that he constructed the existing permanent structure over the property in question (plaint B schedule property) and that he is running a hotel therein and that he is entitled for the protection of the irrevocability of the licence in view of S.60(b) of the Easements Act and that accordingly, he is not entitled to be evicted. The respondents herein/plaintiffs also concede that the agreement as per Ext. A-1 is only a licence. Both the Courts below have found that the construction made by the defendant in the plaint B schedule property is a permanent construction. The instant Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 11/01/2006, with the further order that the question of law (b) formulated in the memorandum of this Regular Second Appeal shall be the substantial question of law to be entertained in this appeal. The said substantial question reads as follows:
"When the appellant under license made construction of permanent nature even before Ext. A1 and the appellant has explained the circumstances under which Ext. A1 happened to be executed, whether the courts below are justified in relying on Ext. A1 to disallow the claim of irrevocable license."

3. Heard Sri. K. V. Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein/defendant and Sri. K. R. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein/plaintiffs.

4. The main aspect to be considered by this Court for determination in this appeal is as to whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of irrevocability of the licence as envisaged in S.60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, in the facts and circumstances of this case. S.60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, reads as follows:
"60. License when revocable.— A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless—
(a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force;
(b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution."

5. It would be profitable to have a brief overview of the legal principles governing the revocability or otherwise of such licensed arrangements. The licence is defined as per S.52 of the Easements Act to mean grant of permission by a person to the other, a right to do or continue to do, in or upon, the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful. But such right does not amount to an easement or any interest in the property. The grant of licence may be express or implied, which can be inferred from the conduct of the grantor. S.60 provides that a licence may be revoked by the grantor unless; (a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force; and (b) the lisensee, acting upon the licence, has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. Revocation of licence may be express or implied. S.62 enumerates the circumstances on the existence of which the licence is deemed to be revoked. One of such conditions contemplates that where licence is grante