Lease or licence turns on substance, not label, where tenancy features and rent control protections apply.

A document styled as a leave and licence deed was found, on its substance and surrounding circumstances, to create a lease. The decisive test was the parties' intention as gathered from the instrument, with exclusive possession relevant but not conclusive. Features such as monthly rent, a bar on sub-letting, and a right of renewal indicated tenancy and an interest in the property in favour of the occupant. A mere label could not be used to camouflage a tenancy as a licence so as to defeat rent control legislation. The suit for eviction was therefore not maintainable under the rent control statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether Ext. 20 created a lease or a leave and licence arrangement, and whether the suit for eviction was maintainable in view of the rent control statute.

Analysis: The document was described as a leave and licence deed, but its substance showed that the appellant was inducted on monthly rent with restrictions consistent only with tenancy, including prohibition against sub-letting and a right of renewal. The decisive test was the intention of the parties as gathered from the document and surrounding circumstances, not the label used by them. Exclusive possession was relevant though not conclusive, and the document created an interest in the property in favour of the appellant. A construction permitting camouflage of a tenancy as a licence would defeat the object of rent control legislation.

Conclusion: Ext. 20 was held to be a lease and not a licence. The appellant was a monthly tenant in exclusive possession, and the suit was not maintainable under the rent control statute.

---