RSA No. 1219 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1219 of 1987 Date of decision:- 09.11.2011 Bachan Singh (deceased) through LRs and another ....Appellants Vs. Bhagat Ram ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- None. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, accepting the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment dated 04.05.1984 passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought the relief of permanent injunction for protecting his possession by alleging himself to be a licensee over the site in dispute and further prayed that he could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. On the other hand, defendants had pleaded that there was no licence in favour of the plaintiff and no injunction could be granted in favour of a trespasser against the true owner. The trial Court had declined to grant the injunction to RSA No. 1219 of 1987 2 the plaintiff, whereas the first Appellate Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. The defendants in their appeal, have urged their view point on the basis of long possession and has claimed himself as tenant under the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants'). The main point emerging for determination is, 'whether the plaintiff is a licencee or a tenant in the premises in dispute?' According to the licence deed, Ex.D1, the plaintiff was given exclusive possession and permitted to raise construction over the premises in dispute. The defendants had been leasing out the properties on the basis of the similar deeds i.e. Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 to the different persons. From the tenor of the deed as well as the right given to the plaintiff to raise construction over the site at his own costs, indicates that it was ot a licence deed. The document executed by the defendants appears to have been projected as a licence deed to take a good defence of ejectment. As such, it would not be unsafe to hold that the real nature of transaction is lease and it is not a licence. The distinction between a lease and a licence is that in the former, there is a transfer of interest in land, whereas in the case of latter, there is no transfer of interest; although a licencee acquires a right to occupy the premises at the wish of the licencer and may arise from fiduciary relationship, whereas the lease may not be the result of such relationship. The lease may be for consideration to be paid daily, monthly or yearly, whereas the licence is for a fixed term and an aggregate rent is payable and the control over the land remains that of the owner and the RSA No. 1219 of 1987 3 licencee has no statutory status, whereas the lessee has a status. In the present case, the fixed rent is payable. The plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the plot in question for a long time, therefore, it cannot be treated as a licence. Since the defendants gave the plot in dispute to the plaintiff on rent, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The tenant cannot be ejected by the defendants forcibly, except in due course of law. It appears that the first Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. The findings returned by the first Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality, much less perversity, which may warrant any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) November 09, 2011 JUDGE ajp