RAJDHANI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MUKESH MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th July, 1994 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in RCA 438/93 arising out of judgment dated 29.9.93 passed by the Sub Judge in Civil Suit No. 59/93 dismissing the plaintiff/respondent's suit for injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal u/Section 100, Civil Procedure Code are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant/defendant on the allegations that the appellant company being licencee of the suit premises, had refused to vacate the same after termination of the licence. The suit was resisted by the appellant-Company on the ground that it was in occupation of the suit accommodation as the tenant of the respondent No. 1 and the agreement dated 1.9.75 (Ex Public Witness Public Witness 1/1) executed between the parties is a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. It was also averred that the respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to file the suit and further the eviction suit is also barred under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The learned Sub Judge, Delhi by the judgment dated 29th September, 1993 found that the deed of agreement dated 1.9.75 (Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/1) created relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the plaintiff's suit for eviction is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff suit was dismissed. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge by the judgment dated 29.7.94 held, on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, that the defendant/appellant was a mere licencee and his licence was validly terminated. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the plaintiff's suit for injunction was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this appeal u/Section 100 of the CPC.

(3.) The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant- company was a licensee or a tenant and also incidentally the question whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It is well settled that in determining whether an agreement creates between the parties the relationship of landlord and tenant or merely that of licensor and licensee, the decisive consideration is the intention of the parties. Inevitably, the issue here has to run around the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 1.9.75 (Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/1). The Trial Court interpreted the said agreement as a contract of tenancy whereas, the lower Appellate Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262 construed it as a deed licence.