TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the document executed between the parties created a lease or only a licence. (ii) Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted with the concurrent finding that the appellant was a licensee.
Issue (i): Whether the document executed between the parties created a lease or only a licence.
Analysis: The decisive consideration was the intention of the parties gathered from the document as a whole and the surrounding circumstances. The agreement described the arrangement as one of leave and licence, restricted the user of the premises to workshop business, fixed compensation rather than rent, limited the hours of use, prohibited residential or other use, and reserved to the licensor the right of entry and inspection. These features negatived any intention to transfer an interest in the premises or to create exclusive possession in the sense required for a lease.
Conclusion: The document created a licence and not a lease, in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted with the concurrent finding that the appellant was a licensee.
Analysis: The trial court and the High Court had taken a possible and plausible view on the evidence and the document. Where two views are reasonably possible, supervisory interference is not justified merely because another view may also be arguable. The finding that the arrangement was a licence did not disclose any jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record warranting correction under Article 227.
Conclusion: No interference under Article 227 was called for, in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that the arrangement was a lease or that the High Court should have interfered with the concurrent findings, so the eviction order was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The character of an occupation arrangement depends on the intention of the parties as gathered from the document and surrounding circumstances, and a supervisory court will not interfere under Article 227 where the subordinate court has adopted a possible view supported by evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
