ABDUL AHAD KANA Vs. HABIBULLAH KALOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE same old dispute - whether the document is lease or licence deed - some time a vexed one, arises for decision in this civil revision by the plaintiff. The significance of the question is that the answer decides nature of the suit and area of adjudication. The relevant issues came to be decided as preliminary issues on the direction of this Court in Civil Revision No. 90 of 1999.

(2.) IN Cobb v. Lane, (1952) ALL ER 1199, it was observed that in the former days, except for the question of the statute, the distinction between a tenancy, whether at will or for a period, and a licence was not so important as it has become since the Rent Restrictions Acts came into operation. If the document is held to be licence deed, the defendant, as a tenant, the lessee, would be entitled to the protection of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 1966. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is a licensee and, therefore, not entitled to such protection.

(3.) THE defendant filed written -statement in which he took the stand that the shops, which he had taken on rent from the plaintiff, gutted in fire. The plaintiff delayed reconstruction. As the defendant was suffering monetarily on account of debts to customers and suppliers, he took loan and constructed the shop on his own expense, and that is how it is in his possession. It is the plaintiff who owes money to him As such, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Defendant further stated that the plaintiff had assured him that the shop would continue to remain in his occupation. He was given to understand that agreement was being executed for tax purpose and family partition.