JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendant is the Appellant against the confirming decision of the District Judge of Cuttack. The suit was one for ejectment on the basis that the Defendant was a licensee and as he had no house of his own, he was permitted to construct a temporary shed to be removed whenever the Plaintiffs required. Plaintiffs asked the Defendant to vacate by a notice (Ext. 3) dated 6th August 1954. 2. The Defendant relied upon an unregistered and unstamped permanent lease (Ext. E) dated 25th August 1942 in support of his title and further claimed title by being in adverse possession for more than 12 years. 3. Both the courts concurrently rejected Ext. E as a spurious document and discarded the story of settlement on payment of Salami and rent. They found that the Defendant was in permissive possession as a licensee and also concurrently found that the structure that was put up by the Defendant was of a temporary character. 4. Mr. Pal for the Appellant did not assail the concurrent findings of fact and advanced a contention on the strength of Section 60 of the Easement Act that the construction was of a permanent character and the licensee (the Defendant) acting upon the license had executed this work of permanent character and as such was not evictable Section 60(b) is as follows: 60. License when revocable-A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless (b) the licensee, acting, upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. The Easement Act has no application to the Cuttack district. Even applying the principles of Section 60 the Defendant has no case. The phrase "acting upon the license" must mean that at' the time when the license was given the Defendant must have been permitted to execute a work of permanent character, and on the basis of such license, the Defendant must incur expenses, in the execution of the work. Apart from the finding of the courts below that the work was not one of permanent character, the plea taken by the Defendant runs counter to this contention. The Defendant took a categorical plea that he was the permanent lessee of the land. Apart from the finding of the courts below that the work was not one of permanent character, the plea taken by the Defendant runs counter to this contention. The Defendant took a categorical plea that he was the permanent lessee of the land. On such a plea even an alternative contention that he constructed the house acting upon the license and incurred expenses in the execution of the work cannot be entertained. There is no substance in this contention. 5. The appeal fails-and is dismissed. In the circumstances, both parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed