SMT. PUSHPA WATI Vs. PUSHPA LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom a decree for injunction and recovery of Rs. 1,000/- has been passed by both the courts below.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from using the premises in dispute and for payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for use and occupation for the period of 1st December, 1970 to 31st July, 1972 on the allegations that she was the owner of the premises and the same had been given to the defendant as a licensee for a period of one year less two days with effect from 24th December, 1968 (Ex.P-2) whereby the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 55/- p.m. as licensee. On the expiry of the said period, the defendant executed another licence deed dated March 3, 1979 (Ex. P-1) for the same period, on similar conditions. It was alleged that the defendant in contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence had started running a poultry farm and that the period of licence stood expired. Hence the present suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellant on the plea that both the said deeds were got executed by fraud and misrepresentation. Virtually, the defendant was a tenant in the premises in dispute and not a licensee. The trial Court held that the defendant-appellant was not a tenant but was a licencee because the agreements Ex. P-1 and P-2 were not rent-notes and were not executed under fraud as alleged by the defendant. As a result of these findings the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed these findings and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in second appeal.

(3.) The only controversy between the parties in this appeal is whether the agreements Ex. P-1 and P-2 create a tenancy in favour of the defendant or that he was merely a licensee under the said agreements. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the defendant was not a tenant on the premises in dispute but a licensee. This being a pure finding of fact could not be challenged in Second Appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.