Judgment :- 1. S. A. 1333 of 1961 arises from O. S.313 of 1956 and the first defendant therein is the appellant. He is also the appellant in S. A. 1332 of 1961 arising from O. S.326 of 1956, in which he is the plaintiff. Both these second appeals raise a common question as to whether Ext. P-1 dated the 16th Meenom,1116, executed by the plaintiff in O. S.313 of 1956, who is the respondent, evidences a lease or a licence. The two courts below have answered this question against the appellant, holding that it evidences a lease and not a licence and have granted appropriate reliefs. 2. Ext. P-1 is in respect of 45 cents of land excluding the frees thereon. Its nomenclature is pattom and has all the usual provisions and covenants of a lease deed. The respondent was to enter possession of the land forthwith and to enjoy for a period of six years, during which pattom was to be paid. There is a provision for forfeiture of the term and for re-entry in default of payment of rent. The restriction in the mode of enjoyment was that only seasonal crops or, catch-crops, as they are called, could be cultivated. The respondent was also allowed to build a cattle-shed thereon. These provisions are to our minds, quite characteristic of a lease as distinguished from a licence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on three facts, first, the admission of the respondent in the plaint in O. S.313, that he took the appellant's permission for putting up item 2 building on the property, second that the respondent had a right only to raise catch-crops and third that 18 cents of land had been sold in the year 1118 by the appellant or his predecessor to a church also transferring possession. None of these militates against the apparent tenor of Ext. P-1. That he had to take permission for the construction of item 2, which comprises a kitchen, a bathroom, and a latrine, not provided, for in Ext. P-1, was only in keeping with its provisions. The restriction as to cultivation only implied, that permanent improvements were not to be made. That a property outstanding on lease was sold by the landlord is not of any significance whatever. 4. P-1, was only in keeping with its provisions. The restriction as to cultivation only implied, that permanent improvements were not to be made. That a property outstanding on lease was sold by the landlord is not of any significance whatever. 4. What are the distinguishing characteristics of a lease have been considered by the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapoor (AIR. 1959 S. C. 1262 at p. 1269). While the lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy the lessee being put in possession, the licence is a right to use the property in a particular manner, while the property itself, in the generality of cases, remains in the control and possession of the owner. The licensee has no interest or estate in the land. The real test is one of intention of the parties, the passing of exclusive possession being prima facie proof of a lease. 5. Applying these tests, Ext. P-1 is a lease of the land and not of the trees, exclusive possession of the land being given to the lessee. His user or enjoyment of the land was unrestricted, except that, by way of cultivation, nothing but catch-crops were to be raised. It is open to a lessor to restrict the user of the land in any manner. Such restrictions do not convert a lease into a licence. The provision for re-entry is significant. We entertain no doubt, that both the courts below are right in their conclusion. 6. In the result, these second appeals are dismissed, with costs in S. A. 1332 of 1961, but without costs in S. A. 1333 of 1961. Dismissed.