Exclusive possession distinguishes lease from licence; monthly tenancy requires termination before ejectment can proceed.

Exclusive possession is treated as the decisive indicator in distinguishing a lease from a licence, and the label used in an auction notice is not conclusive. A licence under Section 52 of the Easements Act gives only permission to use property, whereas transfer of possession for enjoyment of a shop points to a lease. The text further notes that Sections 97 and 124 of the U. P. Municipalities Act do not prevent a lease for up to one year by oral agreement with delivery of possession, and that in the absence of a registered instrument for a longer term the arrangement is treated as a monthly tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ejectment cannot be sustained without termination of that tenancy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction arrangement and delivery of exclusive possession created a lease or a licence, and whether the defendant could be ejected without termination of the tenancy.

Analysis: The decisive factor was the substance of the transaction, not the label used in the auction notice. Exclusive possession was transferred to the defendant, which prima facie indicated a lease rather than a licence. A licence under Section 52 of the Easements Act contemplates only permission to do something on the grantor's property without creating an interest in the property, whereas the arrangement here involved transfer of possession for enjoyment of the shop. The restrictions under Sections 97 and 124 of the U. P. Municipalities Act did not prevent a lease from arising for a term not exceeding one year by oral agreement coupled with delivery of possession. In the absence of a registered instrument for a longer term, the tenancy was to be treated as a monthly tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the tenancy had not been terminated, ejectment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The transaction created a lease and not a licence, and the suit for ejectment was not maintainable without termination of the tenancy.

---