BRAHMANAND KEJRIWAL Vs. KUSHAL KISHORE AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7/3/2000 passed by learned Trial Court in Suit No. 239/93. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent herein for possession of suit premises being Property bearing No. 16, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi situated in Najafgarh Industrial Area. Further decree is passed in favour of respondent directing the defendant/appellant herein to pay mesne profit and damages at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per day from the date of termination of the licence till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per

(2.) Respondent is admittedly the owner of the suit property. Licence Deed dated 1/4/1979 was executed between the parties which mentions that at the request of licensee (appellant), licensor (respondent) has agreed to grant the licence to use some portion (specifically shown in the attached plan) for running a Steel Rolling Mill. The boundary of the said portion had been marked in the plan. The consideration agreed upon was Rs. 30,000.00 per six months as licence fee and certain other terms and conditions on which the said agreement was to operate were mentioned in the said Licence Deed. The agreement further mentions that the licence was for a period of 5 years which could be extended up to another 5 years only provided licensee agrees to pay Rs. 37,500.00 per six months after the expiry of first 5 years. After the expiry of period stipulated in the said Licence Deed, the licence was renewed for a further period of 5 years vide letter dated 30/3/1984. This period also expired on 1/4/1989. It is the case of the respondent that after the expiry of this period he called upon the appellant to vacate the premise and handover the possession thereof to the respondent and even sent registered notice to this effect claiming damages as well for use and occupation of the suit premises. When the appellant did not vacate, respondent filed the suit which has been decreed as aforesaid.

(3.) The main dispute between the parties was as to whether the purported Licence Deed was in fact a licence agreement or it created any lease in favour of the appellant. Naturally, the defence of the appellant in the written statement filed was that the agreement in question although termed as Licence Deed was in substance an agreement to lease out the property to the appellant. Among the issues framed, the first issue related to this controversy, namely, whether the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee. The learned Trial Court has held that the agreement in question was in fact a licence agreement only and did not create any tenancy/lease in favour of the appellant,