C DEVADAS Vs. CALICUT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. No. 340 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the District Court, Kozhikode in A.S. No. 94 of 1989 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

(2.) The short facts of the case is thus: The plaint schedule property is a room in a commercial building owned by the Corporation of Calicut. It was given to the appellant for use and occupation as per Ext. B3 agreement executed between the parties on 31st July 1985. The licence fee as per the agreement was fixed at Rs. 325/- which was later bilaterally enhanced to Rs. 390/-. Subsequently, with effect from 1.4.1986 the Corporation has increased the licence fee to Rs. 428/- per month. The case of the appellant was that on 1.7.1987, the officials of the Corporation of Calicut threatened that the appellant would be evicted if the rent as increased was not paid. It was in that background, the suit was filed. The prayer in the suit is for a decree of prohibitory injunction from enforcing the demand notice dt. 30.3.1987 issued by the respondent. It is further prayed for a decree restraining the defendant from dispossessing the appellant from the plaint schedule room. The above suit was resisted by the Corporation contending that the appellant is only a licensee and not a lessee. The period of licence as per Ext. B3 agreement was for a period from 1.7.1985 to 31.3.1986. The appellant was only given the permission to use the plaint schedule room. The Corporation decided to increase the licence fee by 10 per cent and in view of that, the increase in the licence fee in the case of the appellant was made. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent that the relationship between parties is that of a licensor and licensee and not that of landlord and tenant.

(3.) After the trial, the learned Munsiff held that the appellant is not entitled to the declaration or injunction as sought for. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the abovesaid judgment and decree filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court by judgment dt. 10.8.1995 dismissed the appeal in confirmation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence this second appeal is filed.