- (1.) This is a defendants' appeal against a judgment and decree of Mr. Gian Das, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 2,092/8/-.
(2.) On the 12th May, 1950 the defendant S.R. Mitroo entered into a transaction by a letter the terms of which are as follows- "Dear Dr. Devanandan, Will you kindly take action as soon as you can about my request to have my Institute accommodated in the Massey Hall section of the Y.M.C.A. buildings. The following points which were made by Mr. Horace Alexander and Mr. G.J. Fairfield at your suggestion may be considered in drawing up the agreement in consultation with your legal adviser :- 1. I would like permission to use two rooms for the purpose of holding Pitman's Commercial Institute classes in the Western Wing of Y.M. C.A. Massey Hall building. For this purpose I shall be considered a licensee and this agreement shall be subject to termination at three months' notice at the discretion of the Committee of Management. 2. I shall also be permitted to use the space adjoining for three tents. 3. I shall pay to the Y.M.C.A. for the use of this accommodation Rs. 320 per month plus Rs. 10 per month for each tent space. 4. All my students shall be required to become member of the Y.M.C.A. and pay a student membership fee of Rs. 6 per annum which may be paid quarterly. 5. The enrolment list of the Institute shall be sent to the Y.M.C.A. office at the beginning of every month. 6. The Institute shall be subject to the supervision of the Committee of Management. 7. The Institute shall be called the Y.M.C.A. Pitman's Commercial Institute. 8. The premises shall not be used for residential purposes. 9. Y.M.C.A. shall instal a substraction meter and I shall be responsible for all bills incurred on account of electricity. The bills on account of electricity will be paid through the Y.M.C.A. Office. I will pay costs of wiring in four instalments. 10. I shall provide my own furniture for my classes. 11. No classes shall be called on Sundays."
(3.) On the 16th March, 1951 the Y.M.C.A. put an end to the transaction, what they called a licence, and called upon the defendant Mitroo to return the possession of the premises to them and pay up all amounts which were due to them. As there was a default on the part of Mitroo, the Y.M.C.A. brought a suit for possession on the 30th June, 1952. In their plaint they alleged that the relationship between the parties was that of a licensor and a licensee which was liable to revocation on three months' notice which had been revocated by a notice dated the 16th March, 1951. They also claimed a sum of Rs. 2,098/7/- as their due on account of licence fee, damages, electricity charges etc. The defendants pleaded that they were the tenants and therefore were not liable to return possession of the premises and denied other allegations of the plaintiffs. The Court framed the following issues and they were all decided against the defendants except that the amount due was found to be Rs. 2,092/8/- and not what was claimed- 1. Whether the defendant does not occupy the suit premises as a tenant under the plaintiff ? 2. If issue No. 1 be proved, then whether the defendant does not occupy this premises as a licensee under them ? 3. What amounts are due to the plaintiff from the defendant under the contract of licence ? 4. If the defendant is ultimately found to be a tenant whether the present suit is not liable to be dismissed ? 5. Relief.;