ADULASALAM Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Writ Petition are occupiers of mulgis and Stalls in the Municipal markets in Hyderabad City. In this application for the issue of a Writ they seek to question the action of the Municipal Corporation enhancing the ' rents ' charged for their occupation of the mulgies and stalls. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is also bound by the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1961 and that it has no power to demand enhanced rent from its tenants or evict them except by recourse to the provisions of that Act.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation the claim of the petitioners that they are tenants of the mulgies and stalls is disputed, It is stated by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation who has sworn to the counter-affidavit that what is levied from the petitioners is compensation for use and occupation of the mulgies and stalls in the market and that the Commissioner is authorised under section 534 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act to vary the charges with the approval of the Standing Committee.

(3.) From the rival contentions of the parties as stated in their affidavits it is clear that while the petitioners claim that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Municipal Corporation and the petitioners, the Commissioner claims that the relationship is that of a licensor and licensee. It is, of course, well known that while a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the premises, a licence is a privilege to do something on the premises which otherwise would be unlawful. The question whether the occupation of the petitioners is as tenants or licensees has to te determined with reference to the agreement between the parties. If the agreement is in writing it is a question of construction of the agreement having regard to its terms and where its language is ambiguous, having regard to its object, and the circumstances under which it was executed. The question is not one of words but of substance and the label which the parties choose to put upon the transaction, though relevant, is not decisive. The test of exclusive possession also is not conclusive.