PRAFUL MANOHAR RELEversusSMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS.

                         [2014] 1 S.C.R. 44

A                    PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE
                                  v.
       SMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014)
                         JANUARY 3, 2014
B
           [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN JJ.]

        Leave and licence:

c      Licence - Suit for possession stating that defendants-
  respondents were gratuitous licensees - Alternative plea of
  eviction on ground of bona fide need - Held: Alternative plea
  would be redundant if plaintiff's case of defendants being
  gratuitous licensees was accepted by court - First appellate
  court accepted plaintiff's case that defendants were in
0
  occupation as licensees and not as tenants - High Court has
  not set aside that finding of fact on its merits and dismissed
  the suit simply because the plea of tenancy was, in its opinion,
  contradictory to the plea of licence set up in earlier part of
  plaint - That was not a proper approach or course to follow
E - Judgment of High Court set aside and that of first appellate
  court restored.

        PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:

F      Plea of termination of licence and alternatively eviction
  on ground of bona fide need - Held: Plaintiff-appellant had
  set up a specific case that defendants were occupying the suit
  premises as licensees and licence had been validly
  terminated - In reply to the notice, case of defendants was
G that they were in occupation of suit premises not as licensees
  but as tenants ~ Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled on that basis
  alone to ask for an alternative relief of a decree for eviction
  on grounds permissible under Rent Act.


H                                 44
  PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 45
                GHOSALKAR

       The plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the      A
  defendants-respondents on the ground that they were
  licensees occupying the premises gratuitously. It was the
  case of the plaintiff that the predecessor-in-interest of the
  defendants was allowed to occupy the suit premises as
  a gratuitous licensee on humanitarian considerations.           B
  After his demise, the defendants were served with a
  notice terminating the licence and asking them to hand
  over the possession of the suit premises, but they
~ refused to vacate and falsely claimed to be tenants. It was
  alternatively urged that the plaintiff was entitled to          c
  vacation of the premises, inter a/ia, on the ground of bona
  fide personal need. In the written statement filed by the
  defendants they stuck to their version that the suit
  property was occupied by their predecessor-in-interest
  as a tenant and upon his demise they too were in                0
  occupation of the same as tenants. The trial court
  dismissed the suit. But, the first appellate court decreed
  the suit. However, the High Court allowed the second
  appeal of the defendants-respondents holding that the
  plaintiff's case that the predecessor-in-interest of the        E
  defendants was a gratuitous licensee was incompatible
  with the plea that he was a tenant and, therefore, could
  be evicted under the Rent Act.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                               F
       HELD: 1.1. Whether or not the defendants were
  licensees as alleged by the plaintiff was essentially a
  question of fact and had to be answered on the basis of
  the evidence on record which the first appellate court had
  reappraised to hold that the defendants were let into the G
  suit property by the plaintiff on humanitarian grounds and .
  as gratuitous licensees, and licence stood validly
  terminated. The defence of the defendants-respondents
  that they were occupying the premises as tenants was
  held by the first appellate court not proved. The High H
    46       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   Court could not have interfered with that finding of fact.
    [Para 10] (52-A-D, G]

       1.2. The alternative plea would be redundant if the
  plaintiff's case of the defendants being gratuitous
8 licensees was accepted by the court. That is precisely
  what had happened in the instant case. The first appellate
  court accepted the plaintiff's case that defendants were
  in occupation as licensees and not as tenants. The High
  Court has not set aside that finding of fact on its merits.
C Without finding fault with the findings recorded by the
  first appellate court on the question of license and its
  termination, the High Court has dismissed the suit simply
  because the plea of tenancy was, in its opinion,
  contradictory to the plea of license set up in the earlier
  part of the plaint. That was not a proper approach or
D course to follow. Therefore, the order passed by the High
  Court cannot be sustained. (Para 11-12] (53-B-C, E-G]

          2.1. As regards the inconsistent pleas, the plaintiff-
    appellant in the case at hand had set up a specific case
E   that the defendant as also his legal representatives after
    his demise were occupying the suit premises as
    licensees which licence had been validly terminated. In
    reply to the notice the case of the defendants was that
    they were in occupation of the suit premises not as
F   licensees but as tenants. The plaintiff was, therefore,
    entitled on that basis alone to ask for an alternative relief
    of a decree for eviction on the grounds permissible under
    the Rent Control Act. The written statement filed by the
    defendant contained an express admission of the fact
G   that the property belonged to the plaintiff and that the
    defendants were in occupation thereof as tenants. In the
    trial court also the question whether the defendants were
    in occupation as licensee or as tenants had been
    specifically put in issue thereby giving the fullest
H   opportunity to the parties to prove their respective cases.
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 47
              GHOSALKAR
There was no question of the defendants being taken by A
surprise by the alternative case pleaded by the plaintiff
nor could any injustice result from the alternative plea
being allowed and tried by the court. [Para 18] [57-A-E]

    Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors.
                                                              8
1951 SCR 277 = AIR 1951 SC 177; Bhagwati Prasad v.
Chandramaul 1966 SCR 286=AIR 1966 SC 735; G.
Nagamma and Anr. v. Siromenamma and Anr. 1995 (5)
Suppl. SCR 701 = (1996) 2 SCC 25; B.K. Narayana Pillai v.
Parameswaran Pillai 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 271 = 2000(1) C
SCC 712; J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M.R. Murali and Anr..
 2002 (1) SCR 919 = (2002) 3 sec 98; relied on

     2.2. Further, no error of jurisdiction was committed in
the instant case, as the finding recorded by the civil court
was that the defendants were licensees and not tenants D
and the first appellate court granted relief to the plaintiff-
appellant notin relation to the alternative plea but on the
principal case set up by him. [Para 18] [57-G-H; 58-A]

    3. In the result, the.impugned judgment passed by E
the High Court is set aside and that passed by the first
appellate court restored. [Para 19) [58-B-C]

                    Case Law Reference:
    1951 SCR 277                  relied on      para 13
                                                             F
    1966 SCR 286                  relied on      para 14
    1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 701       relied on      para ·15
    1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 271       relied on      para 16
                                                             G
    2002 (1) SCR 919              relied on      para 17
    CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 50
of 2014.                                ·

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2009 of the High   H
    48       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   Court of Judicature at Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
    Second Appeal No. 90 of 1992.

        K.K. Sharma, Aman Vachhu, Arvind Nayar, Ashuthosh
    Dubey, Veera Shinde, Harsh Sharma, P.K. Manohar for the
B   Appellant.

        Vinay Navare, Keshav Ranjan, Satyajeet Kumar, Abha R.
    Sharma for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c        T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated
    16th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
    Bombay whereby the High Court has allowed Civil Second
D   Appeal No.90 of 1992 set aside the judgment and decree
    passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.33
    of 1987 and restored that passed by the Trial Court dismissing
    Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1984. The factual backdrop in which
    the dispute arose may be summarized as under:
E
         3. Manohar Narayan Rele owned a house bearing
    IPanchayat No.105 situate in village Ravdanda, Taluka Alibag,
    District Raigad, in the State of Maharashtra. In RCS No.87 of
    1984 filed by the said Shri Rele before the Civil Judge (Junior
F   Division), Alibag, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for
    possession of the suit premises comprising a part of the house
    mentioned above on the ground that the defendants who
    happened to be the legal heirs of one Shri Narayan Keshav
    Ghosalkar, a Goldsmith by profession, residing in Bombay was
    allowed to occupy the suit premises as a gratuitous licensee
G   on humanitarian considerations without any return,
    compensation, fee or charges for such occupation. Upon the
    cfemise of Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar in February 1978,
    the defendants who stepped into his shoes as legal heirs
    started abusing the confidence reposed by the plaintiff in the
H   said Ghosalkar and creating nuisance and annoyance to the
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 49
        GHOSALKAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
plaintiff with the result that the plaintiff was forced to terminate   A
the licence granted by him in terms of a notice assuring for
delivery of vacant possession of the premises w.e.f. 1st
February, 1984. Upon receipt of the notice, the defendants
instead of complying with the same sent a reply refusing to
vacate the premises on the false plea that they were occupying         B
the same as tenants since the time of Shri Narayan Keshav
Ghosalkar and were paying rent although the plaintiff had never
issued any receipt acknowledging such payment. In a rejoinder
sent to the defendants, the plaintiff denied the allegations made
by the defendants and by way of abundant caution claimed               c
possession of the suit premises even on the grounds permitted
under the Rent Control Act of course without prejudice to his
contention that the defendants could not seek protection under
the Rent Act. Time for vacation of the premises was also
extended by the said rejoinder upto the end of April, 1984.            D
     4. The defendants did not vacate the premises thereby
forcing the plaintiff to file a suit for possession against them
on the ground that they were licensees occupying the premises
gratuitously and out of humanitarian considerations. It was
alternatively urged that the plaintiff was entitled to vacation of     E
the premises on the ground of bona fide personal need,
nuisance, annoyance and damage allegedly caused to the
premise and to the adjoining garden land belonging to him.

     5. In 'the written statement filed by the defendants they         F
stuck to their version that the suit property was occupied by
Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar as a tenant and upon his
demise the defendants too were in occupation of the same as
tenants.
     6. On the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed         G
as many as eight issues and eventually dismissed the suit
holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants
were gratuitous licensees. The Trial Court also held that the
defendants had proved that they were occupying the premises
                                                                       H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.13/- and that the plaintiff had
  failed to prove that he required the premises for his bona fide
  personal use and occupation. Issues regarding the defendants
  causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and damage
  to the property were also held against the plaintiff by the Trial
B Court while declining relief to the plaintiff.

        7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
  Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.33 of 1987
  before the Additional District Judge, Alibag who formulated six
  points for determination and while allowing the appeal filed by
C the plaintiff decreed the suit in favour of his legal representatives
  as the original plaintiff had passed away in the meantime. The
  First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had successfully
  established that the suit premises was occupied by Shri
  Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar on gratuitous and humanitarian
D grounds. It also held that the defendants-respondents had failed
  to prove the existence of any tenancy in their favour and that
  since the license granted to the defendants had been validly
  terminated, the legal heirs substituted in place of the original
  plaintiff were entitled to a decree.
E
         8. Second appeal No.90 of 1992 was then filed by the
    respondent against the judgment of the First Appellate Court
    before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was
    allowed by a Single Judge of that Court in terms of its judgment
F   impugned in the present appeal. Apart from three substantial
    questions of law which the High Court had formulated for
    consideration, it framed a fourth question for consideration
    which was to the following effect:

         "Whether the plaintiff could raise two contradictory pleas
G        in the plaint, namely, that (i) the defendants were
         permitted to occupy the suit premises gratis; and (ii) that
         the defendants should be evicted from the suit premises
         under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act?"

H        9. Significantly, the decision rendered by the High Court
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 51
        GHOSALKAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
rests entirely on the fourth question extracted above. The High      A
Court has taken the view that while the plaintiff could indeed
seek relief in the alternative, the contentions raised by him were
not in the alternative but contradictory, hence, could not be
allowed to be urged. The High Court found that the plaintiffs
case that the defendant was a gratuitous licensee was                B
incompatible with the plea that he was a tenant and, therefore,
could be evicted under the Rent Act. The High Court observed:

     "It is now well settled that a plaintiff may seek reliefs in
     the alternative but in fact the pleadings are mutually
     opposite, such pleas cannot be raised by the plaintiff. C
     There is an essential difference between contradictory
     pleas and alternative pleas. When the plaintiff claims
     relief in the alternative, the cause of action for the reliefs
     claimed is the same. However, when contradictory pleas
     are raised, such as in the present case, the foundation D
     for these contradictory pleas is not the same. When the
     plaintiff proceeds on the footing that the defendant is a
     gratuitous licensee, he would have to establish that no
     rent or consideration was paid fotthe premises. Whereas,
     if he seeks to evict the defendant under the Rent Act, the E
     plaintiff accepts that the defendant is in possession of
     the premises as a tenant and liable to pay rent. Thus,
     the issue whether rent is being paid becomes
     fundamental to the decision. Therefore, in my opinion,
    ·the pleas that the defendant is occupying the suit F
     premises gratuitously is not compatible with the plea that
     the defendant is a tenant and therefore can be evicted
     under the Rent Act."

     10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. The case of the plaintiff appellant herein primarily was     G
that the original defendant and even his legal representatives
were occupying the suit premises as gratuitous licensees upon
termination whereof the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for
possession. While the Trial Court found that the defendants
                                                                     H
    52       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   were tenants and not licensees as alleged by the plaintiff the
    First Appellate Court had recorded a clear finding to the
    contrary holding that the defendants were indeed occupying the
    premises as licensees whose license was validly terminated
    by the plaintiff. Whether or not the defendants were licensees
B   as alleged by the plaintiff was essentially a question of fact and
    had to be answered on the basis of the evidence on record
    which the First Appellate Court had reappraised to hold that .
    the defendants were let into the suit property by the plaintiff on
    humanitarian grounds and as gratuitous licensees. Absence of
C   any rent note evidencing payment of rent or any other material
    or circumstance to suggest that the relationship between the
    parties was that of landlord and tenant, abundantly supported
    the conclusion of the First Appellate Court. That finding also
    negatived the defence of the defendants-respondents that they
    were occupyfng the premises as tenants which assertion of the
0   defendant-respondent was held not proved by the First
    Appellate Court. There is no gainsaid that while considering the
    question whether the relationship between the parties was that
    of licensor and licensee as alleged by the plaintiff or landlord
    and tenant as asserted by the defendants, the First Appellate
S   Court took into consideration the totality of the evidence on
    record with a view to finding out as to which of the two versions
    was factually correct. That doubtless was the correct approach
    to adopt in a suit based on an alleged license where the
    defendant's logical defence was bound to be that he is in
F   occupation not as a licensee but as a tenant. There was, in that
    view, nothing special or novel about the plea raised in defence
    by the defendants-respondents. What is important is that the
    First Appellate Court on facts found that the defendants and
    even their predecessor were licensees in the premises which
G   stood validly terminated. The High Court could not have
    interfered with that finding of fact leave alone on the ground that
    since the alternative case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was
    contradictory to the primary case pleaded by him, he was
    entitled to relief even on proof of the primary case.
H
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN                        53
        GH.OSALKAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

      11. That apart the alternative plea of ttie plaintiff and the A
defence set up by the defendants was no different from each
other. The only question that would fall for determination based
on such a plea was whether the plaintiff had made out a case
on the grounds permissible under the Rent Control Act. An
adjudication on that aspect would become necessary only if the B
plaintiff did not succeed on the primary case set up by him. The
alternative plea would be redundant if the plaintiffs case of the
defendants being gratuitous licenses was accepted by the
Court. That is precisely what had happened in the instant case.
The First Appellate Court accepted the plaintiff's case that c
defendants were in occupation as licensees and not as tenants.
The High Court has not set aside that finding of fact on it!)
merits. It may have been a different matter if the High Court had
done so for valid reasons and then declined to entertain the
alternative case set up by the plaintiff based on tenancy. One
                                                                    0
could in that case perhaps argue that the Court had declined .
to go beyond the principal contention to examine the alternative
plea which was contradictory to the principal plea. That,
however, is not what the High Court has done. Without finding
fault with the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court on
the question of a license and its termination the High Court has
                                                                    E
dismissed the suit simply because the plea of tenancy was, in
its opinion, contradictory to the plea oflicense set up in the
earlier part of the plaint. That was not, in our opinion, a proper
approach or course to follow.
                                                                       F
     12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Having said that
we may deal with the question whether the plea of license and
tenancy could be together urged by the plaintiff for grant of relief
in a suit for possession.                                              G

     13. The general rule regarding inconsistent pleas raised
in the alternative is settled by a long line of decisions rendered
by this Court. One of the earliest decisions on the subject was
rendered by this Court in Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir                H
    54        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014) 1 S.C.R.


A Prasad and Ors. AIR 1951 SC 177, where this Court
  observed:

         "It is true that it was no part of the plaintiff's case as made
         in the plaint that the sum of Rs. 30POOO was advanced
         by way of loan to the defendant second party. But it was
6        certainly open to the plaintiff to make an alternative case
                                                                           1




         to that effect and make a prayer in the alternative tor a
         decree for money even if the a/legations of the money
         being paid in pursuance of a contract of sale could not
         be established by evidence. The fact that such a prayer
c        would have been inconsistent with the other prayer is not
         really material ... An Appellant may rely upon different
         rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Civil
         Procedure Code to prevent a party from making two or
         more inconsistent sets of a/legations and claiming relief
D        thereunder in the alternative."

        14. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735
   the plea of licence was accepted against the plea of tenancy
   although the plea of licence was not set up by the appellant. .
!: The appellant in that case contended that the land and the
   construction over the land belonged to him and that he had let
   the constructed portion to the respondent on a monthly rental
   basis. The respondent, however, alleged that although the land
   belonged to the appellant the building standing over the same
F was constructed by the respondent out of his own money and,
   therefore, he was entitled to occupy the same till his money was
   recovered from the appellant. Since the plea of tenancy set up
   by the appellant could not be proved, the Court held that the
   respondent was staying in the house with the leave and licence
G of the appellant. What is important is that the Court clearly
   recognised the principle that if the plea raised by the tenant in
   his written statement was clear and unambiguous in a suit
   where one party alleged the relationship between the two to be
   that of licensor and licensee, while the other alleged the
   existence of a tenancy, only two issues arose for determination,
H
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 55
        GHOSALKAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

namely, whether the defendant is tenant of the plaintiff or is      A
holding the property as a licensee. If the Court comes to the
conclusion after the parties lead their evidence that the tenancy
had not been proved then the only logical inference was that
the defendant was in possession of the property as a licensee.
This Court said:                                                    B

    "In such a case the relationship between the parties would
    be either that of a landlord and tenant, or that of an owner
    of property and a person put into possession if it by the
    owner's license. No other alternative is logically or C
    legitimately possible. When parties led evidence in this
    case. clearly they 'were conscious of this position. and so.
    when the High Court came to the conclusion that the
    tenancv had not been proved. but the defendant's
    argument a/so had not been established. it clearly
    followed that the defendant was in possession of the suit D
    premises by the leave and license of the
    plaintiff....................................... ..

     In our opinion, having regard to the pleas taken by the
     defendant in his written statement in clear and E
     unambiguous language, only two issues could arise ·
     between the parties: is the defendant the tenant of the
     plaintiff, or is he holding the property as the license
     ,subject to the terms specified by the written statement? ....
     we are unable to see any error of law in the approach by F
     the High Court in dealing with it."

                                           (emphasis supplied)

     15. In G. Nagamma and Anr. v. Siromenamma and Anr.
(1996) 2 SCC 25, this Court held that the plaintiff was entitled G
to plead even inconsistent pleas especially when, they are
seeking alternative reliefs.                  ·

    16. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in B.K.
Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai 2000(1) SCC 712. In          H
    56        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A that case the appellant-defendant wanted to amend the written
  statement by taking a plea that in case he is not held to be a
  lessee, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the
  Indian Easements Act, 1882. Allowing the amendment this
  Court held that the plea sought to be raised was neither
B inconsistent nor repugnant to the pleas raised in defence. The
  Court further declared that there was no absolute bar against
  taking of inconsistent pleas by a party. What is impermissible
  is taking of an inconsistent plea by way of an amendment
  thereby denying the other side the benefit of an admission
c contained in the earlier pleadings. In cases where there was
  no inconsistency in the facts alleged a party is not prohibited
  from taking alternative pleas available in law.

        17. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
    Court in J.J. Lat Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M.R. Murali and Anr.
D   (2002) 3 SCC 98 where this Court formulated the following
    tests for determining whether the alternative plea raised by the
    plaintiff was permissible:

         "To sum up the gist of holding in Firm Sriniwas Ram
E        Kumar's case: If the facts stated and pleading raised in
         the written statement, though by way of defence to the
         case of the plaintiff, are such which could have entitled
         the plaintiff to a relief in the alternative, the plaintiff may
         rely on such pleading of the defendant and claim an
F        alternate decree based thereon subject to four conditions
         being satisfied, viz., (i) the statement of case by defendant
         in his written statement amounts to an express admission
         of the facts entitling the plaintiff to an alternative relief,
         (ii) in granting such relief the defendant is not taken by
         surprise, (iii) no injustice can possibly result to the
G
         defendant, and (iv) though the plaintiff would have been
         entitled to the same relief in a separate suit the interest
         of justice demand the plaintiff not being driven to the
         need of filing another suit."

H
· P.RAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN                 57
           GHOSALKAR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

      18. The plaintiff-appellant in the case at hand had set up    A
a specific case that the defendant as also his legal
representative after his demise were occupying the suit
premises as licensees which licence had been validly
terminated. In the reply to the notice the case of the defendants
was that were in occupation of the suit premises not as             B
licensees but as tenants. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled
on that basis alone to ask for an alternative relief of a decree
for eviction on the grounds permissible under the Rent Control
Act. Such an alternative plea did not fall foul if any of the
requirements/tests set out in the decision of this Court in J.J.    c
Lal's case (supra). We say so because the written statement
filed by the defendant contained an express admission of the
fact that the property belonged to the plaintiff and that the
defendants were in occupation thereof as tenants. At the trial
Court also the question whether the defendants were in              0
occupation as licencee or as tenants had been specifically put
in issue thereby giving the fullest opportunity to the parties to
prove their respective cases. There was no question of the
defendants being taken by surprise by the alternative case
pleaded by the plaintiff nor could any injustice result frorn the   E
alternative plea being allowed and tried by the Court. As a
matter of fact the trial Court had without any demurrer gone into
the merits of the alternative plea and dismissed the suit on the
ground that the plaintiff had not been able to prove a case for
eviction of the defendants. There was thus not only a proper
trial on all those grounds urged by the plaintiff but also a        F
judgment in favour of the defendant respondents. Last but not
the least even if the alternative plea had not been allowed to
be raised in the suit filed by the appellant he would have been
certainly entitled to raise that plea and seek eviction in a
separate suit filed on the very same grounds. The only              G
difference may have been that the suit may have then been filed
before the Court of Small Causes but no error of jurisdiction
was committed in the instant case as the finding recorded by
the Civil Court was that the defendants were licensees and not
tenants. Superadded to all these factors is the fact that the       H
    58        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   appellate Court had granted relief to the appellant not in relation
    to the alternative plea raised by him but on the principal case
    set up by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff succeeded on the principal
    case set up by him whether or not the alternative plea was
    contradictory or inconsistent or even destructive of the original
B   plea paled into insignificance.

         19. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is, hereby
    allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
    set aside and that passed by the first appellate Court is
    restored. The respondents are granted time till 30th April 2014
C   to vacate the premises subject to their filing undertakings on
    usual terms before this Court within six weeks from today. In
    case the undertakings are not filed, as directed, the decree
    passed in favour of the appellant shall become exucutable
    forthwith. No costs.
D
    R.P.                                             Appeal allowed.