Lease or licence turns on the document as a whole; revocable kiosk licence did not justify injunction against re-entry.

Whether an arrangement creates a lease or a licence depends on the parties' intention gathered from the whole document and surrounding circumstances. Here, the auction terms and deed showed only a personal, limited and non-transferable right to occupy kiosks, with legal possession retained by the Corporation and the arrangement revocable at its instance. The court therefore treated the transaction as a licence and not a lease. Because the petitioners had no proprietary or possessory interest after termination of the licence, they could not satisfy the requirements for temporary injunction or restrain the Corporation from resuming possession. The petitions accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the document executed between the parties created a lease or only a licence in favour of the petitioners. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim injunction restraining the Corporation from resuming possession of the kiosks.

Issue (i): Whether the document executed between the parties created a lease or only a licence in favour of the petitioners.

Analysis: The character of the document had to be determined from its terms read as a whole and from the surrounding circumstances. A lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, involves transfer of a right to enjoy the property and creates an interest in the property, whereas a licence under section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, merely permits an act which would otherwise be unlawful and does not create any interest in the property. The auction terms and the deed showed that the petitioners were given only a personal right to occupy and use the kiosks for a limited period, that the benefit was non-transferable and non-heritable, that the Corporation retained legal possession, and that the arrangement was revocable at the Corporation's instance.

Conclusion: The document was a licence and not a lease.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim injunction restraining the Corporation from resuming possession of the kiosks.

Analysis: Temporary injunction required a prima facie right, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury. Since the petitioners had only a revocable licence and no proprietary or possessory interest against the Corporation, they failed to establish a legal right capable of protection by injunction. On termination of the licence, the Corporation was entitled to re-enter and resume possession, and the petitioners could not claim protection as persons in settled possession against the lawful owner.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were liable to fail because the petitioners held only a revocable licence and not a leasehold interest, and therefore could not restrain the Corporation from resuming possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a transaction creates a lease or a licence depends on the intention of the parties as gathered from the entire document and surrounding circumstances, and a licence that creates no interest in the property does not entitle the licensee to resist the owner's lawful re-entry or to obtain injunction protection after termination.

---