Licence versus tenancy turns on the substance of the occupation agreement, not the label used by the parties.

The legal character of occupation depends on the substance of the accommodation agreement, its terms and the surrounding circumstances, not the label used by the parties. Where occupation ends on cessation of employment or transfer, the company may re-allot the flat, levy licence fees, and the agreement expressly negates a landlord-tenant relationship, the arrangement is a licence and not a lease. On that footing, officers occupying the flats did so as licensees on behalf of the company, so the company's need amounted to its own occupation for rent control purposes. The respondents were therefore entitled to recover possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether the occupier under the company's accommodation agreement was a tenant or a licensee, and whether the landlords were entitled to recover possession on the footing that the flats were reasonably required for the company's own occupation through officers occupying as licensees.

Analysis: A lease transfers a right to enjoy the premises and creates an interest in the land, while a licence is only a personal privilege to do something on the premises without any estate or interest. The true nature of the arrangement must be gathered from the substance of the agreement, its terms, and the surrounding circumstances, and not merely from the label used by the parties. The agreement here showed that occupation ceased on termination of employment, transfer away from Calcutta, or death, that the company could allot another flat, could levy licence fees, could assign the premises during absence, and expressly negatived any relationship of landlord and tenant. These features were consistent only with a licence. Since the officers occupied as licensees on behalf of the company, the company's requirement was its own occupation within the meaning of the rent control ground.

Conclusion: The occupier was a licensee and not a tenant, and the respondents were entitled to recover possession under section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal character of occupation depends on the true substance of the agreement and surrounding circumstances; where the arrangement creates only a personal privilege of occupation without transferring an interest in the land, it is a licence, even if exclusive possession or residential use is involved.

---