BADRI PRASAD BHOLA NATH Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal quandary between lease and license, with the principles being simple in statement but puzzling in application, when the facts are bi-faced, is not uncommon in courts and this appeal has claimed special leave only because the short point, complicated by the admitted circumstances, does not admit of short shrift.

(2.) The litigation is between landowner and alleged licensee and is for ejectment; the former won before the trial Court, lost in first appeal but again succeeded in the High Court. The tangle of facts need fuller narration for appreciation of the divirgence of views between the courts below and choice of the correct conclusion. Finality, on questions of fact, ordinarily attaches to the first appellate judgment. So we proceed on that footing and indeed, the High Court, while reversing the result, has not overturned the factual holdings of the District Judge.

(3.) The subject-matter of the suit for eviction is a plot of land with a room and verandah and some vacant space. This roofed edifice plus open land was in existence when the suit was filed. But was it there when the defendants were put in possession If it was not there, the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act III of 1947) (for short, the Act) would not apply to the proceedings but if there was some structure and appurtenant open space it would attract the definition of accommodation in S. 2 (a) and repel the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the action in ejectment unless it be that there was no lease involved but only a licence which was revoked by the plaintiff-licensor.