2004 3 SCR 306 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. LAHOT1, J. The suit property is a shop situated on the ground floor of a building known as Woodlands Building on the M.G. Road, Ernakulam.
Vide clause 1 , the licence fee is appointed at Rs.
The decree was maintained in first appeal.
300 and has companytinued to remain in occupation of the premises ever since then.
The trial Court directed the suit to be dismissed by recording a finding that one of the two appellants who are father and son was a tenant and number a mere licensee.
500 per mensem.
On the upper floor the respondent is companyducting hotel business.
In the second appeal preferred by the landlord the High Court has set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and directed a decrees as prayed for being passed.
A photo of the building, produced for the perusal of the Court at the time of hearing, shows a number of shops in companytinuity located on the ground floor.
The next para states And whereas the licensor is willing to grant licence to the licencee in respect of the aforesaid room for the purpose of carrying on business in stationery goods as licencee of the premises.
360 and then to Rs.
A brief resume of the relevant out of the nine clauses of terms and companyditions agreed upon between the parties and as companytained in the deed would suffice.
All these findings have been upheld by the first appellant Court.
As between the parties there exists a document dated April 1, 1981 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent which is styled as a deed of licence.
The defendant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
300 to Rs.
Though a part of the same building, the shop in possession of the appellant is a separate entity or a separate unit of premises.
The business companyducted by the appellant in the premises is number only different from the one carried on by the respondent, the respondent has numbersupervisory power or any other companynection with the business run by the appellant.
The companypensation paid by the appellant to the respondent for user of the premises is paid month by month.
The rent was increased from Rs.
On these findings, the trial Court companycluded that the appellant was a tenant and the tenancy was number terminated.
The licensee is authorized to use the room as licensee for period of one year from 1.4.1981.
The building is a double storey building.
The document begins with a recital whereas licencee is desirous of having the use of the premises for companyducting a stationery shop in roomin Woodlands building intended as car parking space for lodgers at the time of companystruction.
The appellant is in exclusive possession of the premises.
The business carried on by the appellant in the suit premises is number in any manner companynected with the hotel business of the respondent.
The nature of the premises is number such as can be said to be necessarily an adjunct of the premises in possession of the respondent for his own use.
On the ground floor there are several shops.
The appellant entered in the witness box but the respondent did number adduce any evidence relevant for the purpose of determining the nature of the appellants occupation of the suit premises or the appellants status whether a tenant or a licensee.
The respondent filed a civil suit seeking issuance of mandatory injunction directing the appellants to hand over vacant possession over the shop to the respondent on the ground that the licence to occupy the suit premises was terminated.
The son was held to be a tenant and hereinafter he is being referred to as the appellant.
