TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of leave and licence or a deed of lease. The building belongs to the respondent, and the appellant claims to be in its occupation as a month to month tenant. The respondent instituted the suit in the civil court, out of which this appeal by special leave arises, for a decree for eviction of the appellant alleging that he has been in occupation of the building as a licensee and has illegally refused to vacate in spite of service of notice. The appellant's defence is that he is a tenant protected by the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1968, and in view of Section 56 thereof the suit in the civil court is not maintainable. Agreeing with the plaintiff-respondent, the trial court passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the property, prima facie he must be considered to be a tenant; although this factor by itself will not be decisive. Judged in this light, there does not appear to be any scope for interpreting Ext. 20 as an agreement of leave and licence. 4. The document has been placed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Although as stated earlier, it has been described as an agreement of leave and licence and the parties as the "Licensor" and the "Licensee", its provisions unmistakably, indicate that the appellant was being let in as a tenant on the monthly rental of ₹ 350/-(besides water and electricity charges) to be paid regularly on or before the 5th day of each consecutive month. By clause 5, it was agree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the transaction by resorting to skilful drafting. 5. Mr. Dholakia, learned Counsel for the respondent, strenuously contended that the test of exclusive possession is an outdated one which should not now be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the nature of possession. Reliance was placed on the observations of Lord Denning MR in Shell-Mix and B.P. Ltd. v. Manchester Garages Ltd. (1971) 1 All ER 841. We do not agree that exclusive possession of a party is irrelevant as is suggested; but at the same time as has been observed in the earlier cases of this Court, referred to above, it is not conclusive. The other tests, namely, intention of the parties and whether the document creates any interest in the property or not, are importan....