RATHA BEHERA Vs. RAMA RATAN GOENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No. 1 and one Sayeed Nazar Ali filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that they are the permanent lessees in respect of the suit tank and for issue of an injunction restraining the defendants not to lease out the tank to anybody else except the plaintiffs and for issue of a direction to the defendants to receive payment of Rs. 800.00for the year 1970-71 and to lease out the tank to them and for other ancillary reliefs. Sayeed Nazar Ali, who was originally plain,i No. 2 in the suit, having died, his heirs have been substituted. The suit having been dismissed by both the Courts below, the present appeal has been preferred by the aforesaid plaintiffs.

(2.) There is a tank which is in suit. This tank admittedly belongs to the defendants. They used to grant a right to the original plaintiffs to rear fish in the tank and appropriate the same annually. This annual transaction between the defendants and the original plaintiffs was being regulated by written contracts. The last such contract before suit was one executed on 7-6-1969 for the year 1969-70. This year was to expire on 7-6-1970. Knowing that the defendants were' unwilling to renew the contract for the subsequent year, they filed the suit for-the aforesaid reliefs basing their claim on the foundation of their previous transactions with the defendants as being transactions of lease. Their suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that they were mere licensees from year to year. The last deed of contract dated 7-6-1969 was nothing but a licence deed. Since licences are revocable on the expiry of the term of the licence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any renewal of the same.

(3.) One of the essential questions that was raised and determined by the courts below was whether the deed dated 7-6-1969 was a deed of lease or a deed of licence; in other words, the question was whether the plaintiffs were lessees or licensees. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the transaction between the parties was a transaction of licence. To determine the character of this document, it will be appropriate to extract some relevant portions thereof herein below: