TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court determines license, not lease. Appellant considered licensee, not tenant. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed Versus Tufelhussin Samasbhai Sarangpurwala</h3> Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed Versus Tufelhussin Samasbhai Sarangpurwala - 1988 AIR 184, 1988 (1) SCR 1057, 1988 (1) SCC 155, 1987 (4) JT 342, 1987 (2) SCALE ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant was a licensee or a tenant.2. Whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petition.Summary:1. Licensee or Tenant:The main contention in this appeal was whether the appellant was a tenant or a licensee. The resolution of this issue depended on the construction of the agreement dated 9th February 1965, described as an agreement of 'leave and licence.' The agreement specified that the licensor allowed the licensee to use the premises for a workshop business for five years, with several restrictions, including a prohibition on residential use and a stipulation that the licensee could not terminate the agreement early except for breaches of terms. The Court analyzed the terms of the agreement, which included the licensor's right to inspect the premises and the licensee's obligation to pay a monthly compensation of Rs. 225. The Court concluded that the document created a licence rather than a lease, emphasizing the intention of the parties and the restrictions on the use of the premises.2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes:The respondent filed an ejectment proceeding against the appellant u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. Section 41 allows for a suit to be filed against an occupant of immovable property when the tenancy or permission has been determined or withdrawn. The trial Judge and the High Court found that the appellant was a licensee and not a sub-tenant, thus affirming the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to entertain the eviction petition. The High Court disallowed the special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution, affirming the decision of the trial court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, concluding that the agreement in question created a licence and not a lease. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was given time until 31st March 1988 to vacate the premises, provided an undertaking was filed with the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
TaxTMI 