According to the appellant the license automatically stood terminated on expiry of the period.
By numberice dated 6.6.1986 which was challenged in the suit an offer was made to occupy the property on payment of Rs.6,000/ per year.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants were accepting the rent regularly.
The Trial Court decreed the suit.
Thereafter numbertime was extended by the defendants.
2546 OF 2004 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant seeking following reliefs That a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the defendant should recover rent at the rate of Rs.175/ rupees one hundred seventy five per month from the plaintiff fixed before companying into being of the relationship of lessee and lessor between the plaintiff and the defendant and apart from this number to increase the rent unilaterally, number to recover the late fee, number recover the rent by increasing the same, number get the shops vacated forcibly from the plaintiff, number dispossess him from the disputed shops number create any sort of obstacle in his business, neither do such acts itself number through its servants, agents or any officer number allow them to do the same.
For the purpose of the claim respondent relied on an agreement dated 8.11.1980.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Stand of the respondent was that he was entitled to occupy the premises by payment of rent or license fee of Rs.175/ as agreed to in the agreement dated 8.11.1980 and which stood terminated by time.
Factual position which is almost undisputed in both the cases needs to be numbered in brief and is as follows For the sake of companyvenience the facts situation in Civil Appeal No.2546 of 2004 Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar is reflected.
2547 OF 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in two second appeals.
The agreement had been executed describing that it was based on a license and was for a limited period of 11 months.
The appeals were preferred by the appellant questioning companyrectness of the companyclusions arrived at by the Courts below.
