BHAGWAUNA AND OTHERS Vs. SHEIKH ANWARUZZAMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendants.

(2.) Plaintiffs suit for perpetual injunction and in the alternative for possession and recovery of Rs. 4.50 ps. as arrears of rent was dismissed by the trial court in respect of the first two reliefs but was decreed for the to recovery of the amount of money claimed. The trial court held that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant and since the tenancy of the defendants had not been terminated by giving a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the suit for ejectment or for recovery of possession could not be decreed. Since the rent at the rate of 2 Annas per month was in arrears, the recovery of arrears of rent was decreed. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower appellate court held that the defendants were licensees and not tenants. The plea that the license had become irrevocable by virtue of the fact that the defendants father had raised a construction over the land was also rejected. The appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed. Cross-objections by the defendants in regard to the recovery of arrears of rent was also dismissed.

(3.) In this appeal learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate court had not specifically set aside the finding of the trial court that the defendants were tenants of the land in suit, the finding hat the defendants were licensees was erroneous and was based on misinterpretation of Exhibit 4. In the alternative, it was contended that even if the defendants were held to be licensees their eviction was protected by virtue of S. 60 (b) of the Easements Act for acting upon the license they had raised a construction of a permanent character incurring expenses. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am unable to accept any of these contentions. The reasons are as follows: