Ram Awatar Singh vs Khajan Singh on 20 March, 1978
5. The next argument of Mr. Mitra is that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the shop room. He contends that even according to the defendant's own case the plaintiff was asked to run the shop. So the plaintiff was in exclusive possession. That being so, Mr. Mitra argued, the trial court ought to have held that the plaintiff was a tenant. He
has relied in support of this contention, on the decision in Secy. of State v. Bhupalchandra Ray, reported in ILR 57 Cal 655 : (AIR 1930 Cal 739) and also another decision of the Bombay High Court in Sherif Dadumiyaji v. Emperor reported in 126 Ind Cas 872 : (AIR 1930 Bom 165). No doubt it has been held in these two cases that exclusive possession is one of the conditions which has to be taken into consideration in deciding whether it is a lease or licence. But this is not the only consideration. The entire surrounding circumstances and the intention of the parties have also got to be taken into consideration.