BISWANATH PANDA Vs. GADADHAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the sole defendant's second appeal from the confirming decision dated 19-9-64 of Sri D. Hota, 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, passed in T. A. No. 155/64.

(2.) THE suit was for eviction of the defendant from the suit-land of 0.032 decimals in extent with a house standing thereon, appertaining to C. S. Plot No. 149 of Khata No. 42 situated in Cuttack Municipality Ward No. 7 bearing holding No. 244 and for delivery of Khas possession thereof to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff also claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff after eviction from the suit-land.

(3.) TO understand the true nature of the relationship between the licensor and the licensee, the decisive consideration is the intention of the parties. Where there is no formal document embodying the terms of agreement, the intention is to be inferred from surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties (vide AIR 1965 SC 610). In another case of the Supreme Court, AIR 1959 SC 1262 their Lordships held likewise and further said that a party getting exclusive possession under a document is prima facie considered a tenant. In both the cases the Supreme Court was considering the terms of a written agreement to find out if they created a tenancy or lease or a mere license. The crucial circumstance, in such cases, is the nature of grant of exclusive possession. This is a consideration of the first importance, but the test of exclusive possession is by no means decisive of existence of a tenancy or a license; (Vide AIR 1965 SC 610). A grant conferring exclusive possession may, in very many cases, operate as a mere license.