DAYA WATI Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is as to whether document Exhibit P-7 is a licence deed or a lease deed. Both the Courts below holding the same to be a licence deed decreed the suit for possession of the shop as well as for recovery of Rs. 10,080.00-, the amount of licence fee. This appeal is by the defendants.

(2.) The property in dispute is described as shop No. 3 forming part of property No. 732 situated on Rishi Daya Nand Road, Ludhiana. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma plaintiff is the owner of the property. He filed the suit for possession of the shop and for recovery of Rs. 10,080.00- on account of compensation for use and occupation of the shop for the period from 1-1-1980 to 31-12-1982 at the rate of Rs. 280 per mensem. Manohar Wati, mother of the plaintiff, was the original owner. She had gifted the shop in dispute to the plaintiff vide gift-deed dated 29-12-1975. Earlier Madan Lal was carrying on the business of General Provisions (Karyana) in the shop in dispute as a licensee with effect from 1/09/1967 vide licence deed dated 22/08/1967. Only portion of the shop aforesaid was allowed to be used by Madan Lal. Otherwise the control and possession throughout remained with Manohar Wati. At that time licence fee was at the rate of Rs. 80 / - per mensem. Subsequently such like licence deeds continued to be executed. It was on 16/04/1979 that a fresh licence deed was executed and Madan Lal agreed to pay Rs. 280.00- per mensem as licence-fee. On breach of the terms of the licence, the same was to stand as revoked. Madam Lal was to deliver the possession. A notice revoking the licence was issued by the plaintiff and Madan Lal denied ownership of the plaintiff. Hence his possession became illegal and the suit was filed.

(3.) The suit was contested by Madan Lal. He pleaded that he was a tenant in the property in dispute for the last more than 15 years on payment of Rs. 80 / - per month as rent. He claimed to be in exclusive possession of the property from the very beginning. No licence deed was ever stipulated to be executed. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The ownership of the property of the plaintiff was not denied however, it was admitted that Manoharwati was the owner. However, it was denied that she had gifted the shop to the plaintiff Dr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma. In case of proof of the gift deed he pleaded that he would be tenant under Ravinder Kumar. He denied the control over the shop of the plaintiff. He denied the execution of the licence deed. However, he pleaded that his signatures were obtained on some documents alleging the same to be rent note. According to him the rent was never increased from Rs. 80.00- to Rs.280.00-. Rent at the rate of Rs. 80.00- per month was remitted through money order. He claimed to have paid the rent up to December, 1979. Subsequently the