Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.44 seconds)Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985
20. Now, applying the extant law to the case at hand. Plaintiff in his plaint
asserts that the defendant, who is his licensee, does not vacate the premises
despite termination of his licencee vide legal notice dt. 21.12.2003 (Ex.
PW1/12). This suit was filed on 31.07.2004. Thus, there is no 'huge delay' in
filing this case. Therefore on the anvil of the ratio of Sant Lal Jain (supra),
this suit seeking defendant's removal by valuing the same at Rs. 130/ can
certainly not be faulted with. Other reliefs seeking recovery of Rs. 80,000/
and Rs. 12,500/ are also within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Court
fees of Rs. 3,270/ furnished with the plaint is appropriate.
C.M. Beena And Anr vs P.N. Ramachandra Rao on 22 March, 2004
27. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it
is clear that exclusiveness of possession or otherwise is one of the criteria for
ascertaining whether such possession is in the nature of 'license' or not. In the
case at hand, the defendant is running the shop since 1999. He has been in
exclusive possession thereof and continues to be so even as on date and the
plaintiff has no control over the same. Plaintiff has no control over the lock
and key of the shop. Defendant has a telephone connection in his own name.
There is no evidence whatsoever led by the plaintiff that he has any control
over defendant's possession over the shop in question. Defendant is using the
said shop exclusively. He is running full fledged commercial activity therein.
It is thus clear that the present one is not a case where the possession or
control of the shop was retained by the plaintiff while the defendant was only
permitted to make such use of the shop as would have been unlawful, but for
the permission given. The fact that the plaintiff gives defendant's possession
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 15 of 19
of the shop the hue and colour of 'license' and its occupation charges as
'licensee fee' cannot itself be decisive of the nature of occupation. Therefore,
what is clear is that the nature of defendant's occupation of the shop can be
anything, but on 'license' basis.
Sankar Kumar And Anr. vs Mohanlal Sharma on 8 January, 1998
29. Plaintiff's counsel further argued that defendant (DW1) admitted that
he had no document to show that he was in occupation of the shop prior to
1999. He pointed out that defendant (DW1) also admitted that he had not paid
any house tax and that he had no written lease deed or rent receipt in his
favour executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi. These arguments are again without
merit for multiple reasons. The mere factum that the defendant has not been
able to prove that he initially came into the shop as a tenant of Ms. Bhagwati
Devi will not, by any logic, imply that plaintiff's case of there being
relationship of licensor - licensee stands proved. Firstly, a plaintiff must
stand on his own legs. A plaintiff cannot seek to build the edifice of his case
upon the weaknesses and shortcomings in defendant's stand. Decisions
reported as Sankar Kumar & Anr. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 Orissa
117, State of West Bengal vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal & Anr., AIR 1982
Cal 251 and Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs.
Badagara Jumayath, JT 2004 (6) SC 556 can be referred to in this regard.
Secondly, the onus is not upon the defendant to disprove plaintiff's version as
regards existence of licensorlicensee relationship. Rather, the onus is
squarely upon the plaintiff himself to prove his own case that the shop was
given to defendant on 'license' basis. The defendant cannot be obligated to
disprove plaintiff's stand and that too without the latter not discharging his
own burden. This issue certainly cannot be decided in plaintiff's favour on the
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 17 of 19
misplaced assumption that it is defendant's onus to disprove plaintiff's stand.
Section 101, Evidence Act casts the burden of proof upon the plaintiff. And
in terms of section 102, Evidence Act it is the plaintiff's case that would fail
if no evidence at all were given on either side. For these reasons, the fact that
there is no rent receipt, or lease deed executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi
favouring the defendant will not in any manner advance plaintiff's case. For
similar reasons, the fact that defendant paid no house tax will not also come
to plaintiff's assistance in proving his case.
State Of West Bengal vs Subimal Kumar Mondal And Anr. on 12 June, 1981
29. Plaintiff's counsel further argued that defendant (DW1) admitted that
he had no document to show that he was in occupation of the shop prior to
1999. He pointed out that defendant (DW1) also admitted that he had not paid
any house tax and that he had no written lease deed or rent receipt in his
favour executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi. These arguments are again without
merit for multiple reasons. The mere factum that the defendant has not been
able to prove that he initially came into the shop as a tenant of Ms. Bhagwati
Devi will not, by any logic, imply that plaintiff's case of there being
relationship of licensor - licensee stands proved. Firstly, a plaintiff must
stand on his own legs. A plaintiff cannot seek to build the edifice of his case
upon the weaknesses and shortcomings in defendant's stand. Decisions
reported as Sankar Kumar & Anr. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 Orissa
117, State of West Bengal vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal & Anr., AIR 1982
Cal 251 and Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs.
Badagara Jumayath, JT 2004 (6) SC 556 can be referred to in this regard.
Secondly, the onus is not upon the defendant to disprove plaintiff's version as
regards existence of licensorlicensee relationship. Rather, the onus is
squarely upon the plaintiff himself to prove his own case that the shop was
given to defendant on 'license' basis. The defendant cannot be obligated to
disprove plaintiff's stand and that too without the latter not discharging his
own burden. This issue certainly cannot be decided in plaintiff's favour on the
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 17 of 19
misplaced assumption that it is defendant's onus to disprove plaintiff's stand.
Section 101, Evidence Act casts the burden of proof upon the plaintiff. And
in terms of section 102, Evidence Act it is the plaintiff's case that would fail
if no evidence at all were given on either side. For these reasons, the fact that
there is no rent receipt, or lease deed executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi
favouring the defendant will not in any manner advance plaintiff's case. For
similar reasons, the fact that defendant paid no house tax will not also come
to plaintiff's assistance in proving his case.
Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya ... vs Badagara Jumayath Palli Dharas ... on 19 August, 2004
29. Plaintiff's counsel further argued that defendant (DW1) admitted that
he had no document to show that he was in occupation of the shop prior to
1999. He pointed out that defendant (DW1) also admitted that he had not paid
any house tax and that he had no written lease deed or rent receipt in his
favour executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi. These arguments are again without
merit for multiple reasons. The mere factum that the defendant has not been
able to prove that he initially came into the shop as a tenant of Ms. Bhagwati
Devi will not, by any logic, imply that plaintiff's case of there being
relationship of licensor - licensee stands proved. Firstly, a plaintiff must
stand on his own legs. A plaintiff cannot seek to build the edifice of his case
upon the weaknesses and shortcomings in defendant's stand. Decisions
reported as Sankar Kumar & Anr. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 Orissa
117, State of West Bengal vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal & Anr., AIR 1982
Cal 251 and Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs.
Badagara Jumayath, JT 2004 (6) SC 556 can be referred to in this regard.
Secondly, the onus is not upon the defendant to disprove plaintiff's version as
regards existence of licensorlicensee relationship. Rather, the onus is
squarely upon the plaintiff himself to prove his own case that the shop was
given to defendant on 'license' basis. The defendant cannot be obligated to
disprove plaintiff's stand and that too without the latter not discharging his
own burden. This issue certainly cannot be decided in plaintiff's favour on the
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 17 of 19
misplaced assumption that it is defendant's onus to disprove plaintiff's stand.
Section 101, Evidence Act casts the burden of proof upon the plaintiff. And
in terms of section 102, Evidence Act it is the plaintiff's case that would fail
if no evidence at all were given on either side. For these reasons, the fact that
there is no rent receipt, or lease deed executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi
favouring the defendant will not in any manner advance plaintiff's case. For
similar reasons, the fact that defendant paid no house tax will not also come
to plaintiff's assistance in proving his case.
Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Neelavathi And Ors vs M. Natarajan And Ors on 30 November, 1979
19. There is one more reason to arrive at this conclusion. The law is that
the question of court fee and suit valuation must be considered in the
backdrop of allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be
influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final outcome
of the suit on merits {Neelavathi vs. N. Natarajan, (1980) 2 SCC 247}. The
allegation in the plaint is that the defendant Billu is plaintiff's 'licensee' and
that despite termination of his 'licence' through legal notice Ex. PW1/12, he
did not vacate the premises. It is well settled that a suit for mandatory
injunction would be maintainable after the termination of license by issuing a
notice when the licensee has refused to hand over vacant possession.
Alternatively, a licensor may also file a suit for possession of the suit
property and pay court fees as prescribed under section 7 (v), Court Fees Act.