Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for eviction instituted in 1983 by the respondent (original plaintiff) against the original defendant (now deceased, represented by legal heirs). The respondent claimed that he was a lessee of a piece of land at Ward No.11, Chandanwadi, Thane, and had erected a structure including a room admeasuring 150 sq.ft. In April 1981, the original defendant approached him seeking temporary permission to occupy the room as his own premises were to be ready in about a year. The respondent granted permission on a monthly compensation of Rs.40/-, with no intention to create a tenancy. The defendant occupied the premises in May 1981 but remained in arrears. A notice dated 27th January 1983 was issued to quit and vacate. The plaint was later amended to claim eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he had taken the land on lease in February 1981, constructed a permanent structure at a cost of Rs.17,000/-, and paid a security deposit of Rs.6,000/-, asserting a landlord-tenant relationship. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane decreed the suit on 15th December 1993, which was upheld by the Joint District Judge, Thane on 31st July 1998. The present petition was admitted on 1st September 1998. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and held that the defendant was a licensee, not a tenant. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - License vs. Tenancy - Intention of Parties - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 105, 108 - The court considered whether the occupation of premises on payment of monthly compensation created a tenancy or a license. The plaintiff-respondent granted permission to occupy a room temporarily, and the parties never intended to create a tenancy. The court upheld the findings of the courts below that the defendant was a licensee and not a tenant, and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant was a tenant or a licensee in respect of the suit premises.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decrees of the courts below. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Licensee cannot claim tenancy rights
- Relationship of licensor and licensee
- No intention to create tenancy
- Eviction decree upheld
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 13
Writ Petition No.4573 of 1998
Mr. K.K. Malpathak for the Petitioners, Ms. Gauri Godse for the Respondents
Ramsamooj Sahadev Mourya (since deceased through L.Rs. Smt. Mayadevi Ramsamooj Mourya & Ors.)
Ramcharan Jaykaran Yadav (since deceased through L.Rs. Smt. Teeja Ramcharan Yadav & Ors.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for eviction of a licensee from premises.
Remedy Sought
The respondent (original plaintiff) sought a decree for possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent.
Filing Reason
The defendant occupied the premises as a licensee but failed to vacate despite notice and remained in arrears.
Previous Decisions
The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane on 15th December 1993, and the appeal was dismissed by the Joint District Judge, Thane on 31st July 1998.
Issues
Whether the defendant was a tenant or a licensee in respect of the suit premises.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the defendant was a tenant, having taken the land on lease and constructed a permanent structure, and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed.
The respondents contended that the defendant was a licensee, as the permission to occupy was temporary and no tenancy was intended.
Ratio Decidendi
The intention of the parties at the time of granting permission to occupy determines whether the relationship is that of licensor and licensee or landlord and tenant. In this case, the parties never intended to create a tenancy, and the defendant was a licensee.
Judgment Excerpts
The material averment in support of the case of the Respondent was that he as a lessee of a piece of land situated at Ward No.11, Chandanwadi, Thane, had erected a structure, including a room, admeasuring 150 sq.ft. thereon.
The Respondent averred that the parties never intended to create a tenancy.
The courts below have, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on the record, come to the conclusion that the original Defendant was a licensee and not a tenant.
Procedural History
The suit for eviction was filed on 14th September 1983. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane decreed the suit on 15th December 1993. The appeal was dismissed by the Joint District Judge, Thane on 31st July 1998. The present writ petition was admitted on 1st September 1998 and heard on 16th June 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sections 105, 108
