- (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff arises out of a suit for declaration that he is a tenant in respect of Suite No. 42 in the ground floor of Block no. 4 at Premises no. 10, Galiff Street, Calcutta under the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs, 160/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In consequence of a suit being Suit no. 2303 of 1972 filed by the defendant before the 4th Judge, Small Causes Court the defendant got a decree against the plaintiff. Against the said order a revision application was filed before this Court by the plaintiff on which a Rule was obtained by him. But ultimately the said Rule was discharged. It is stated that while discharging the Rule the Hon'ble single Judge left it open to the petitioner, appellant herein to file a suit under section 49 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, if he is so advised. The suit out of which this appeal arises was on the basis of the said leave granted by the Hon'ble Judge.
(2.) THE case made out by the plaintiff appellant is that on or about 1st of August 1967 the parties entered into an agreement whereby the defendant agreed to let out to the plaintiff a flat being Suite no. 42. In the said agreement it is provided that the plaintiff was to hold the said flat as a monthly tenant for one year only commencing from the date of the agreement and the tenant shall pay Rs. 160/- per month as rent. It was also agreed that the tenant plaintiff shall not sublet or underlet the flat or any portion thereof and immediately on the expiry of one year from the date of agreement he will quit, vacate and deliver up the vacant possession to the defendant landlord. On the basis of the said agreement the plaintiff occupied the said flat. It is alleged that between the parties the tenancy will continue even after one year is elapsed and it will be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is alleged in the plant that after expiry of one year stipulated in the original agreement, the term of one year was extended from time to time. It is stated by the plaintiff that he is a tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which, however, was denied by the defendant. It is stated by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff was a licensee for one year as asked for and the defendant has no right to let out the premises in question without permission of the Co-operative Society which was a tenant under the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the plaintiff was only a licensee under the sub-tenant, that is, the defendant in the suit. It is stated that the defendant has no right to sublet the premises in question without specific permission of the Co-operative Society. The said permission was sought for and granted only for one year and the said permission was extended on the specific letter of request being made by the plaintiff for such permission which was again extended for another year. But in spite of expiry of the said year the plaintiff failed and neglected to vacate the premises and as such a suit was filed under section 41 of the Presidency Smelt Causes Court Act and a decree was obtained which was to be executed. But in the meantime the plaintiff has filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen.
(3.) THE only question for our consideration is whether in view of the documents executed between the parties and letters addressed, the demise of the premises is a licence or a lease. It must be made clear that the documents executed between the parties specifically mentioned the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. Rent was specifically reserved. It has also been pointed out in the recital that the permission was taken from the Co-operative society for one year and therefore, it was within the knowledge of both the parties that the premises cannot be let out without the permission of the Co-operative Society who is a tenant under the Calcutta Improvement Trust.;