Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property as a licensee was decreed by the trial court and dismissed by the first appellate court.
(2.) The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit land from the defendant. His case was that the suit land was purchased. by him from one Abdul Rekib Choudhury by registered sale deed on 14.3.1952. He also got possession of the same. The defendant entered upon the suit land as a licensee with the assurance that he would vacate the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Later, on being asked to vacate, the defendant failed to do so. Consequently the suit was filed. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff that he (defendant) was a licensee. He claimed to be non-evictable tenant in respect of the suit land. The defendant categorically denied that he was a licensee liable to be evicted as claimed by the plaintiff.
(3.) The learned trial court framed four issues. Issue No. 2 was "whether defendant No. 1 is a licensee under the plaintiff'. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, came to a finding that the defendant was not a tenant under the plaintiff. He was a licensee liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit and directed the defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit land. The defendant filed an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj. The learned Asstt. District Judge also decided the issue No. 2 in the affirmative. It was held that the defendant was a licensee under the plaintiff. He, however, went a step further and held that though the defendant was a licensee, he was covered by the protection under section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and, as such, he was not liable to be evicted. As a result of the aforesaid finding, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed, the appeal was allowed, and the suit of the plaintiff dismissed. Against the aforesaid order of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has come in second appeal before the court.;