Case Note & Summary
The respondent, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, owned premises in Wardha for promotion of Khadi and Village Industry. The appellant represented that he had knowledge of khadi and village industry and was permitted to occupy a stall admeasuring 29 ft. x 17.6 ft. on payment of license fees of Rs. 700 per month for a period of one year. The trust filed a suit for possession after the license period expired. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellant filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The substantial question of law framed was whether a licensee paying license fee is covered by the term 'tenant' under clause 2(5) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, and whether permission of the Rent Controller is necessary for eviction. During pendency, the plaintiff filed an application for dismissal and deposit of occupation charges, but the parties agreed to hear the appeal on merits. The court held that the appellant was a licensee, not a tenant, as the occupation was for a fixed period on payment of license fee, and the relationship was that of licensor and licensee. Therefore, the definition of 'tenant' under the Rent Control Order did not apply, and no permission from the Rent Controller was required. The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Definition of Tenant - Licensee vs Tenant - Clause 2(5) of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - The court considered whether a licensee paying license fee falls within the definition of 'tenant' under the Rent Control Order. The appellant was permitted to occupy a stall on payment of license fees for a fixed period, and the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant. Held that a licensee paying license fee is not a tenant under the Rent Control Order, and therefore no permission of the Rent Controller is required for eviction. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a licensee paying license fee is covered by the term 'tenant' as defined in clause 2(5) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 and whether permission of the Rent Controller is necessary for evicting such a licensee.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed; decree for possession passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court upheld.
Law Points
- Licensee paying license fee is not a tenant under C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Permission of Rent Controller not necessary for eviction of licensee
