- (1.)Plaintiff, who lost in both the courts below, has come up in second appeal. The two substantial questions of law formulated in the Memorandum of Second Appeal and on which, notice was issued, are:
(a) whether the finding of the courts below that Ext. A1 agreement is a transaction of tenancy is legal and proper

and

(b) whether the courts below acted according to law in refusing relief in respect, of plaint B schedule movables

(2.)Appellant plaintiff is the owner of a shop building at Trivandrum. He was running a hotel there. Licence was also in his name. While so under Ext. A1 agreement dated 15/07/1976, executed by the respondent, he entrusted the entire building along with the movables and the hotel licence to the respondent for the conduct of a hotel for a period of three years The mesne profits agreed to be paid by the respondent every month was Rs. 180/-. Respondent was permitted to use the hotel licence obtained in the name of the appellant and the appellant undertook to renew the licence every year. Respondent also undertook not to assign his rights and he agreed that after the term of three years, he will surrender the premises. The document is nomenclatured as an agreement. Appellant claimed that this is a licence of the shop along with the movables as a running business for a term of three years and that it will not come within the ambit of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The claim of the respondent is that Ext. A1 is a lease deed and he is entitled to the protection of a lessee including the benefits of the rent control legislation. On this question, both the courts disagreed with the appellant and accepted the contentions of the respondent.
(3.)Evidently, the wording of Ext. A1 and the framing of suit as one for mandatory injunction instead of moving the Rent Control Court for eviction are short cuts intended to overreach the rent control legislation. The pet name "mesne profits" will not convert the agreed monthly payment to anything other than rent. Though the courts below rejected the prayer for mandatory injunction, which, in this case, is evidently a disguise for eviction, "mesne profits" was correctly understood as 'rent' and it was decreed. That part of the decree, confirmed by the appellate court, is under challenge by respondent in a memorandum of cross objection.