S K PURI Vs. M SESHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This being a second appeal, it may be first pointed out that there are concurrent findings of facts by both the courts below that the defendant/ appellant was licensee and the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to a decree of khas possession over the demised premises on revocation of the licence. In the instant appeal the defendant/appellant endeavours to make out a substantial question of law on the plea that there was non-consideration of material evidence on the record by both the courts below.

(2.) Admittedly, the appellant entered into occupation of the demised premises on the strength of an agreement dated January 9,1989 (Ext.1) on payment of a sum of Rs. 35,000 per month as also a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000 by way of advance. The controversy between the parties was as simple as that could be. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the agreement between the parties was to create a licence whereas, the defendant/appellant asserted to have been inducted as a monthly tenant to be governed by the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Therefore, the deed of agreement dated 9.1.1989, which was an agreed document between the parties, was simply to be construed. True, it was that when a controversy arises between the parties as to the averments in a deed, a court of law is required to go into the intention as also the conduct of the parties so as to construe the real impute of the deed/agreement.

(3.) What I find in the instant case is that both the courts below have examined the agreement dated 9.1.1989 (Ext.1) and have also taken notice of the attending facts and circumstance on the record i.e. to say the evidence so as to determine whether the occupation of the appellant was by way of licensee or by way of a monthly tenant. On a total consideration of the entire evidence on the record both the courts below have arrived at a definite conclusion that the agreement between the parties was by way of creating a licence on payment of a licence fee @ Rs. 3,500 per month and the plaintiff was entitled to revoke the licence after once having granted extension to it on the ground of some marriage ceremony, in the family of the appellant and, therefore, a decree for khas possession was passed by the learned trial court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court.