Leave-and-licence relationship remains unchanged after expiry; eviction upheld, but damages were reduced and limited to proved occupation.

A statutory leave-and-licence agreement was treated as conclusive proof of the parties' relationship, so post-expiry acceptance of compensation and absence of an immediate notice to vacate did not by themselves create a tenancy or establish waiver; the eviction order was therefore upheld. Damages for continued occupation, however, had to be confined to the proved period and statutory purpose, so the higher award for an anterior period was modified. The damages component was also limited to the suit premises, not additional claims for furniture and fixtures, and amounts already paid or deposited were directed to be adjusted, leaving the separate furniture-and-fixtures claim open.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners could resist eviction by asserting waiver and a conversion of the relationship from licensor-licensee to landlord-tenant after expiry of the licence period; (ii) whether the direction to pay damages was sustainable in respect of the period and the quantum fixed by the competent authority.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners could resist eviction by asserting waiver and a conversion of the relationship from licensor-licensee to landlord-tenant after expiry of the licence period.

Analysis: The written leave and licence agreement, being conclusive proof under the statutory scheme, established the petitioners' status as licensees. Mere acceptance of monthly compensation after expiry of the licence period, or omission to issue a notice immediately, did not by itself amount to waiver or create a landlord-tenant relationship. The plea of waiver also required clear pleading and proof. The concurrent findings of the authorities below that the petitioners overstayed as licensees were based on a possible view and did not call for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction order failed and the direction for eviction was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the direction to pay damages was sustainable in respect of the period and the quantum fixed by the competent authority.

Analysis: The provision enabling damages for continued occupation after expiry of the licence had to be applied with reference to the relevant facts. Since no immediate notice to vacate was issued and the eviction application was filed later, damages could not be awarded for the anterior period on the higher basis adopted by the competent authority. Further, damages under the provision related to the suit premises only, and not to additional charges for furniture and fixtures. The amount already paid or deposited was liable to adjustment, while the separate claim for furniture and fixtures was left open to be pursued in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The damages award was modified as to both the commencement date and the quantum, and the separate furniture-and-fixtures claim was left open.

Final Conclusion: The petition was only partly successful. The eviction order was maintained, but the damages direction was substantially modified in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a statutory leave and licence regime that makes the written agreement conclusive proof of the parties' relationship, post-expiry acceptance of compensation or absence of immediate notice does not by itself convert a licence into a tenancy or establish waiver; damages for continued occupation must also be fixed with reference to the proved facts and the statutory purpose of the provision.

---