GOPALAN GANGADHARAN Vs. DEVASSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff respondent filed the suit to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule building alleging that he is only a licensee. Defendant took the stand that Ext.A1 evidences a lease and not a licence. Courts below held otherwise.

(2.) Defendant contends that even assuming that he is only a licensee the construction of a structure of permanent character in the property makes the licence irrevocable under S.60(b) of the Easement Act (for short, the Act). Both the Courts below relying on the commission report held that the construction is of a permanent character. Recitals in Ext.A1 reveal that the defendant had obtained the plot on rent and that he had constructed the building thereon. The learned Sub-Judge held that the protection under S.60(b) of the Act will not be available to the defendant as he is bound by the terms in Ext.A1 to remove the structure after the period stipulated in the agreement. As the Courts below have held that the defendant is only a licensee, the only surviving question for determination is as to whether he can invoke S.60(b) and claim irrevocability of the licence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that in view of the construction of the structure in the property by the defendant the licence has become irrevocable and the plaintiff by invoking provisions in other statutes like Indian Contract Act cannot ignore S.60(b). Relying on Hanifa Jusab v. Dadu A. Gani (AIR 1964 Gujarat 44) and Jagannath v. Jayantilal (AIR 1980 Gujarat 41) counsel submitted that wherever there is a relationship of licensor and licensee, the licence is irrevocable if it comes under S.60(a) or (b) and an agreement to the contrary has only to be ignored. In other words, it is contended that in a case where a structure of permanent character was constructed by the licensee incurring expenditure the Court cannot with the aid of any other statute obliterate the benefit accrued under S.60(b) of the Act.