The main point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs respondents are the lessees of the appellants. The appellants are the owners of a private market situate in Madras known as Zam Bazar Market. Defendants 1 to 3 to the suit were the contractors appointed by the appellants for collecting rent at the time of the institution of the suit. Though the building in which the market is located is owned by the appellants it cannot be used as a market for the purpose of sale of meat or any other article of human consumption without the permission of the Municipal Council.
Mere necessity of giving a notice to a licensee requiring him to vacate the licenced premises would not indicate that the transaction was a lease.
Whether an agreement creates between the parties the relationship of landlord and tenant or merely that of licensor and licensee the decisive consideration is the intention of the parties. This intention has to be ascertained on a consideration of all the relevant provisions in the agreement. In the absence, however, of a formal document the intention of the parties must be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the parties.
While it is true that each stallholder is entitled to the exclusive use of his stall from day to day it is clear that he has no right to use it as and when he chooses to do so or to sleep in the stall during the night after closure of the market or enter the stall during the night after 11.00 p.m. at his pleasure.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the intention of the parties was to bring into existence merely a licence and not a lease and the word “rent” was used loosely for “fee”.
No comments:
Post a Comment