(1.) THE plaintiff--respondent (hereinafter to be called the respondent) filed a suit under S. 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for issuance of a mandatory injunction against the defendant--appellant (hereinafter to be called the appellant) to vacate the shop in dispute and not to interfere with his possession. According to the averments in the plaint, the said shop had been given to the appellant as a licensee with effect from 12-4-1959 in terms of the licence--deed, dated 11-4-1959 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The licence fee had been fixed at Rs. 50.00per mensem. At the time of the execution of the deed the respondent was a minor and later on became major on 27-6-1966. The appellant failed to pay the licence--fee regularly after 12-12-1965 as a result of which the licence was revoked by the respondent by means of a notice, dated 6-3-1967, and the appellant was asked to vacate the shop on 12-4-1967. As the appellant refused to comply with the notice, the suit was filed.
(2.) THE allegations in the plaint were traversed by the appellant in his written statement. Inter alia it was contended that the relationship between them was of landlord and tenant and that the appellant was in exclusive actual possession of the shop where he had installed hosiery machinery worth about Rupees 20,000/ -. Non--payment of rent after 13-12-1965, however, was admitted. In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-
(3.) POSSESSION was given to the appellant. It was further stipulated that the electric expenses and the rent of the meter would be the responsibility of the licensee. The appellant also undertook not to make any changes in the building. The appellant had no authority to transfer possession of the shop and it was his responsibility to deliver back its possession to the owner.