Irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) can be inferred from conduct, permanent works and acquiescence, defeating possession claims.

An irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 may be inferred from the substance of the pleadings, the surrounding circumstances and the parties' conduct, even if the statutory formula is not reproduced verbatim. Where the licencee, with the licensor's knowledge and acquiescence, carries out permanent additions or alterations and incurs expense in furtherance of the permitted use, the licence may be treated as continuing for that purpose. On that basis, the occupation remained protected and the claim for possession failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents had pleaded and proved an irrevocable licence under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, so as to defeat the appellant's claim for possession.

Analysis: The licence had to be determined from the pleadings, surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties, and the evidence led at trial. The written statement, read as a whole, asserted that the school was permitted to occupy the premises for the purpose of running the institution, that it had made permanent constructions and substantial additions and alterations, and that these works were undertaken in furtherance of the permission granted. The issues framed at trial also covered irrevocability of the licence. The Court held that strict reproduction of the statutory language was unnecessary where the substance of the defence was clear and both parties knew the case they had to meet. On the evidence, the school had constructed additional rooms and facilities, incurred expenses, and done so with the licensor's knowledge and acquiescence while continuing to use the property for education. The conduct of the licensor and the surrounding documents supported an inference that the permission was intended to endure so long as the educational purpose continued.

Conclusion: The licence was held to be irrevocable under Section 60(b), and the appellant acquired no better right to revoke it or obtain possession.

Final Conclusion: The claim for possession failed because the school's occupation was protected by an irrevocable licence inferred from the pleadings, conduct, and the permanent works carried out in furtherance of the educational purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licencee, with the licensor's knowledge and acquiescence, executes permanent works and incurs expenses in furtherance of the very purpose for which possession was granted, an irrevocable licence may be inferred even if the pleadings do not reproduce the statutory formula verbatim, provided the substance of the defence is and the parties have gone to trial on that basis.

---