Broad meaning of licensee under Small Causes Court jurisdiction includes gratuitous licensees in possession disputes.

The expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 is used in its broader legal sense and is not confined to the narrower definition in the Bombay Rent Act. On that construction, a gratuitous licensee is included within Section 41(1), because the statutory scheme and legislative purpose support jurisdiction over disputes between licensors and licensees to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, a suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee for recovery of possession is maintainable before the Court of Small Causes under Section 41.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 includes a gratuitous licensee and is not confined to the definition in Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947; (ii) Whether a suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is maintainable before the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 includes a gratuitous licensee and is not confined to the definition in Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.

Analysis: The expression "licensee" is not defined in the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. Section 41(1), as amended, was enacted to consolidate jurisdiction over disputes between licensors and licensees and landlords and tenants and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The definition in Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rent Act is limited to a licensee under a subsisting licence for licence fee or charge and does not control the wider expression used in Section 41(1). Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 shows that a licence does not necessarily depend on monetary consideration, and the statutory context and legislative purpose support a broader meaning. The surrounding scheme, objects and reasons, and the contemporaneous statutory setting all indicate that the word was used in its general sense.

Conclusion: The expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) includes a gratuitous licensee and is not restricted by Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is maintainable before the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Analysis: Section 41(1) confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes over suits between a licensor and a licensee relating to recovery of possession of immovable property, subject to the statutory exclusions. Since a gratuitous licensee falls within the expression "licensee" used in Section 41(1), such disputes are within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The scheme of the 1976 amendment was to bring these disputes under one forum and prevent delay, hardship, and fragmented litigation.

Conclusion: A suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is maintainable before the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the view taken by the Full Bench on jurisdiction was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory text and legislative purpose indicate a broader usage, the expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 is to be understood in its general legal sense under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and includes a gratuitous licensee, making such suits maintainable in the Court of Small Causes.

---