- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This second appeal is mainly against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 24.3.2006 by which the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court granting injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, however, even after upholding the finding of the trial court that the appellant was not the tenant but was the licensee for a small space in the temple.
(3.) It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff was given license to sit in the temple premises for short period of darshans at the time of Mangla and Rajbhog darshans. For that short period of few hours, the plaintiff was permitted to sell some goods which are used in sewapuja. After that, the plaintiff was to vacate the suit premises is an admitted fact. Therefore, no exclusive possession of the said space was given to the plaintiff is also an admitted position. Looking to the nature of the business which the plaintiff was doing, it is clear that for that purpose, the tenancy was not created by even implication.;