Civil Court possesses jurisdiction to evict a licensee upon expiry of a fixed-term leave and licence agreement.

The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property in Ahmedabad.

The property was originally tenanted by the defendant’s father-in-law, and subsequently her husband.

In 2003, the husband entered into a compromise in previous Rent Suits (HRP Nos. 1120/1994 and 1121/1994), surrendering tenancy and handing over possession.

Simultaneously, a new Leave and Licence Agreement/Rent Note was executed in favor of the defendant (appellant) for a fixed period of 11 months and 29 days.

After the expiry of this period, the defendant refused to vacate, claiming the compromise was obtained by fraud and that the original Rent Act protection continued.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to retain possession of the suit property as a tenant under the Rent Act?

2. Whether the learned Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the suit (i.e., whether the matter was governed by the Rent Act or Civil Law)?

3. Whether the original tenancy continued and devolved upon the appellant despite the 2003 compromise and new agreement?

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding first appeals.

Order XXIII Rule 3 regarding compromises.

Once a tenancy is lawfully determined and possession surrendered, a subsequent license for a fixed term excludes the operation of the Rent Act.

The Court cited Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370, establishing that the person resisting a title holder must provide specific pleadings and documents to justify continued possession.

The Court further applied Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249, regarding the imposition of realistic costs for frivolous litigation and abuse of judicial process.

The Court observed that the defendant's husband categorically admitted in cross-examination that he signed the compromise pursis at Exh. 124, which recorded the surrender of possession.

This act effectively terminated the landlord-tenant relationship under the Rent Act.

The subsequent execution of a fixed-term Leave and Licence Agreement (Exh. 115) created a new legal relationship governed by general civil law rather than rent control statutes.

The Court found the defendant’s allegations of fraud unsubstantiated, noting no legal challenge was ever made against the 2003 compromise decree.

Applying the Maria Margarida test, the Court held that since the license period had expired and the plaintiff proved ownership, the defendant had no legal right to remain in the property.

The Civil Court had proper jurisdiction because the Rent Act protection ceased upon the voluntary surrender of the original tenancy and the creation of a fresh, limited-term license.

The Court ordered the appellants to vacate the premises and pay costs of Rs. 15,000 for abusing the judicial process to prolong unauthorized occupation for over two decades.