9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and their legal representatives have not been impleaded in appeal as they have no interest in the subject-matter of litigation. The third has been transposed as respondent No. 7 to this appeal. They were, however, alive when the special leave petition was filed and were shown as appellants 1 to 3, but two of them were struck out from the record after their death and the third trans- posed as Respondent No. 7. Though the building in which the market is located is owned by the appellants it cannot be used as a market for the purpose of sale of meat or any other article of human consumption without the permission of the municipal council under s. 303 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919 (hereafter referred to as the Act). Before such a permission is granted the owner has to obtain a licence from the Municipal Commissioner and undertake to comply with the terms of the licence. The licence granted to him would be for one year at a time but he would be eligible for renewal at the expiry of the period. Section 306 of the Act confers power on the Commissioner to require the owner, occupier or farmer of a private market for the We of any animal or article of food to do a number of things, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion against the appellants and the defendants 1 to 3 restraining them from realising the extra levies and for further restraining them from interfering with their possession over their respective stalls as long as they continued to pay their dues. The First Additional City Civil Court Judge before whom the suit had been filed found in the respondents' favour that the extra fees sought to be levied by the contractor were sanctioned neither by the provisions of the Municipal Act nor by usage but upon the finding that the respondents were bare licensees dismissed their suit. The appellate bench of the City Civil Court before whom the respondents had preferred an appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. The High Court reversed the decision of the courts below and in the decree passed by it pursuant to its judgment granted a number of reliefs to the respondents. Here we are concerned only with reliefs (ii) (e), (f) and (g) since the appellants are not interested in the other reliefs. Those reliefs are : "(ii) that the respondents defendants, in particular defendants 1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3) be and hereby are restrained from in any manner interfering w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir stalls wooden blocks for chopping meat, weighing scales, meat choppers and other implements used by them in connection with their business. These used to be left either in boxes or almirahs kept in the stall and locked up therein. It is also an admitted fact that some of the stall-holders have been carrying on business uninterruptedly in their stalls for as long as forty years while some of them have not been in occupation for more than five years. It is in evidence that these stall-holders have been executing fresh agreements governing their use and occupation of stalls and payment of what is styled in the agreements as rent whenever a new contractor was engaged by the appellants for collecting rents. The next thing to be mentioned is that the agreements referred to the money or charges payable by the stall- holders to the landlords as 'rent' and not as 'fee. It has, however, to be noted that the dues payable accrue from day to day. Thus in Ex.A- 1 the rent of Re. 1 /- is stid to be payable every day by 1.00 P.m. In all these agreements there is a condition that in case there is default in payment of rent for three days the stall-holder was liable to be evicted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days the stall-holder is liable to be evicted by being given only 24 hours' notice it would not be easy to say that this 'rent' is payable in respect of a lease. On the other hand, what is called rent may well be only a fee payable under a licence. At any rate this circumstance shows that there is ambiguity in the document and on this ground also surrounding circumstances could be looked into for ascertaining the real relationship between the parties. Indeed, the City Civil Court has gone into the surrounding circumstances and it is largely on the view it took of them that it found in favour of the appellants. The High Court, however, has based itself upon the agreements themselves. To start with it pointed out-and, in our opinion rightly-that the use of the word 'rent' in, Ex. A-1 did not carry the respondents' case far. The reasons given by it for coming to the conclusion that the transaction was a lease, are briefly as follows : (1) Notice was required to be given to the stallholder before he could be asked to vacate even on the ground of non-payment of rent; (2) the annual repairs were to be carried out by the landlord only in the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in undisturbed and exclusive possession of the stalls as long as they paid the rent and until there was a valid termination of their right to hold the stalls as such tenants." While it is true that the essence of a licence is that it is revocable at the will of the grantor the provision in the licence that the licensee would be entitled to a notice before being required to vacate is not inconsistent with a licence. In England it has been held that a contractual licence may be revocable or irrevocable according to the express or implied terms of the contract between the parties. It has further been held that if the licensee under a revocable licence has brought property on to the land, he is entitled to notice of revocation and to a reasonable time for removing his property, and in which to make arrangements to carry on his business elsewhere. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 3rd edn. vol. 23, p. 431). Thus the mere necessity of giving a notice to a licensee requiring him to vacate the licensed premises would not indicate that the transaction was a lease. Indeed, s. 62(c) of the Indian Easements Act. 1882 itself provides that a licence is deemed to be revoked where it has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rao v. The Eluru Municipal Council (I.L.R. [1956] A.P. 515 at pp. 520-4.) as laying down the same proposition. That was a case in which the High Court held that stall-holders in the municipal market who were liable to pay what was called rent to the municipality were not lessees but merely licensees. The fact, therefore, that a stall-holder has ,exclusive possession of the stall is not conclusive evidence of his being a lessee. If, however, exclusive possession to which a person is entitled under an agreement with a landlord is coupled with an interest in the property, the agreement would be construed not as a mere licence but as a lease. (See Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapoor([1960] 1 S.C.R. 368). In the case before us, however, while it is true that each stall-holder is entitled to the exclusive use of his stall from day to day it is clear that he has no right to use it as and when he chooses to do so or to sleep in the stall during the night after closure of the market or enter the stall during the night after 11-00 P.m. at his pleasure. He can use it only during a stated period every day and subject to several conditions. These circumstances, coupled with the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
