JIWAJI RAO COTTON MILLS LTD. Vs. AMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal in short are that the Defendant was in the employment of the Plaintiff company that as a servant of the Company he was given a quarter situated in the compound of the Company to live in. He was given this quarter for the term of his service, that the Company did not charge him any rent, but only recovered Rs. 1/12/ -as maintenance charges. It was further alleged in the plaint that after the termination of the service of the Defendant, the Company served upon him a notice asking him to vacate the quarter but the Defendant did not comply, hence this suit for his eviction. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he was a tenant and not a licensee of the Plaintiff Company. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties held that the Defendant was a licensee and ordered his eviction in consequence. On appeal the first appellate Court held that the Defendant was not a licensee but a tenant and rejected the Plaintiff's suit. This is now Plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Defendant is a licensee or a tenant.

(3.) THE question is whether in the face of these facts, the Defendant is a tentant or licensee of the Plaintiff. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent -decision in : AIR 1959 SC 1262 (Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor) after seating the difference between a lease and licence, have observed that the intention of the parties was the real test for ascertaining whether a person was a licensee or a tenant.