9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the document executed by the parties is an agreement of leave and licence or a deed of lease. Judgment Details: 1. The trial court passed a decree for eviction of the appellant, which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant, concluding it by concurrent findings of fact. 2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the case had to be decided based on the nature of possession of the appellant, which depended on the correct interpretation of the document. 3. The document was described as an agreement of leave and licence, but the substance of the document indicated that the appellant was being let in as a tenant. The terms of the document, such as the monthly rental and the right of renewal, were more in line with a lease rather than a licence. 4. The Court highlighted that the exclusive possession of a party is an important consideration, along with the intention of the parties and whether the document creates any interest in the property. The Rent Acts aim to protect the tenant from exploitation by the landlord, and the interpretation should advance this objective. 5. The surrounding circumstances, such as the notice to vacate served after the expiry of the agreement term, also supported the conclusion that the document was a lease. The appellant was found to be enjoying exclusive possession as a month-to-month tenant. 6. Therefore, the Court held that the document was indeed a lease, and the appellant was a month-to-month tenant protected by the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The appeal was allowed, the decree passed by the lower courts was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
|
