ALI HASAN Vs. HAJI KALLOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and damages. The plaintiff is the owner of the premises in dispute, which is a drawing room of house No. 112/114, Mohammad Ganj, Benajhawal, Kanpur. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants occupied the room as a licensee in the year 1962. It was taken for carrying on a business of vegetable vending. The defendant No. 1 was the son of the plaintiff while defendant No. 2 was his friend. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants requested him to permit them to use the room which he did for the consideration that defendant No. 1 his son would be benefitted by the business carried on by defendant No. 2. At the time the room was taken defendant No. 2 had assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the same within a short time and would arrange for another accommodation. It appears that relations between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 became strained and the plaintiff asked defendant No. 2 to vacate the room. His case was that the defendants were mere licensees of the premises and their licence had been revoked ; they accordingly were liable to vacate the same. They were further required to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises. The defendants neither vacated the premises nor paid the damages ; hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 admitted the plaintiff's case that the defendants were licensees and were liable to vacate the premises and pay the damages.

(3.) ON appeal the lower appellate Court reversed that decree and has decreed the suit for possession and damages at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month. ON the findings that the defendants were permitted to occupy the premises as licensees ; that the shop was taken in partnership by the two defendants to carry on a business, that no rent was either agreed or paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. It was found that the only consideration to the plaintiff for allowing the defendants to use the premises was that respondent No. 1 who was the son of the plaintiff would be benefitted by the business carried on in the premises by the defendant No. 2. No relationship of landlord and tenant was found to be existing between the parties and the defendants being only licensees of the accommodation were found liable to vacate the same after revocation of the licence in their favour. They were further found liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month for use and occupation.