Case Note & Summary
The applicants (original plaintiffs) were owners of a building at Turner Road, Bandra, Mumbai. They executed a leave and license agreement with the respondent-bank on 1/12/1987, granting the first floor premises to the bank as licensee for a monthly compensation of Rs 3000/- per portion, plus municipal taxes. The license period was to expire in November 1997. The plaintiffs wrote to the bank on 7/5/1997 informing them of the expiry. Negotiations for purchase of the premises failed, and the plaintiffs called upon the bank to vacate. The bank refused, claiming tenancy rights. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction in the Small Causes Court, which decreed eviction. The bank's appeal was dismissed. The bank then filed a civil revision application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court held that the defendant was a licensee, not a tenant, and after expiry of the license, it had no right to remain in possession. The Small Causes Court had jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The revision was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Leave and License - Expiry of License - Eviction - Licensee not entitled to protection under Rent Act - The defendant-bank was a licensee under a leave and license agreement which expired in November 1997. The court held that after expiry of the license, the defendant is not entitled to any protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and must vacate the premises. (Paras 4-6) B) Jurisdiction - Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Suit for eviction against licensee - The Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction against a licensee under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the suit was not maintainable. (Paras 7-8) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Scope - The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the defendant was a licensee and not a tenant were upheld. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant-bank, after expiry of leave and license agreement, is entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application with costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the defendant was a licensee and not a tenant, and that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction. The defendant was directed to vacate the premises.
Law Points
- Leave and license agreement
- Licensee not tenant
- Expiry of license
- No protection under Rent Act
- Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
