JUDGMENT SHAH C. J.-Sohanlal Naraindas-hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff -commenced an action in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for a decree in ejectment against Laxmidas Raghunath-hereinafter called the defendant-alleging that the defendant was occupying a loft 18’ x 15’ on the upper floor of a building at Pragraj Galli, Mulki Jetha Market, Bombay, under an agreement of a licence dated November 3, 1958 and that the licence had been duly terminated and withdrawn, but the defendant had fi1ed and neglected to vacate the loft notwithstanding the demand. The defendant contended that he was a tenant of the loft, that the tenancy had not been duly terminated as required by law, that he was entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and not his licensee. The decree was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Bombay. The High Court held that on the terms of the agreement and in the light of the surrounding circumstances the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant. With certificate granted by the High Court the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. 3. The certificate granted by the High Court is defective. The plaintiff applied for certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution and in the alternative under Article 1 33(1)(c) of the Constitution. The High Court passed an order certifying the case under Article 133(1)(c). A certificate granted by the High Court must be supported by adequate reasons. It is obligatory upon the High Court to set out the question of public or private importance which in their opinion falls to be determined in the proposed appeal. Since we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal, we have not thought it fit to vacate the certificate. 4. The agreement dated November 3, 1958 was recorded formally in writing and was duly executed. The plaintiff was the lessee of a shop No. 11 in Pragraj Galli, Mulji Jetha Market, and the loft of that shop was the subject-matter of that agreement. The period of the agreement was one year. 4. The agreement dated November 3, 1958 was recorded formally in writing and was duly executed. The plaintiff was the lessee of a shop No. 11 in Pragraj Galli, Mulji Jetha Market, and the loft of that shop was the subject-matter of that agreement. The period of the agreement was one year. It was staled in the agreement that the loft "was given on leave and licence basis for use and occupation" of the defendant on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The relevant conditions were: "1. The owner (the plaintiff) has agreed to grant the leave and licence for use and occupation of the said loft (Medo) of the said shop for a period one year commencing from Aso Vad 13, S. Y. 7014 to Aso Vad 12, S Y.2015 2. The licensee (the defendant) shall pay to the owner monthly compensation or licence fee at the rate of Rs. 750 per month and the licensee has paid Rs. 3,0"0 (Rupees three thousand) only to the owner as compensation or licence fee for the said period in advance on or before the execution of this agreement. 3. The licensee shall have no right as a tenant or sub-tenant in respect of the said loft (medo) of the said shop. The licensee shall not sub-let, allow to use, transfer or assign in any way the said loft (medo) of the shop to anyone else. 4. The owner shall bear and pay the rent of the said shop. 5. The licensee shall me and occupy the said loft (medo) of the said shop as a cloth merchant only and shall not be entitled to carryon any other business. 6. The parties hereto shall give one months clear notice of their intention to terminate this agreement in writing. 7.* * * * * 8. If the licensee commits breach of any of the terms of this agreement in that case the owner shall be entitled to terminate and revoke the leave and licence hereby granted without giving notice to the licensee." 5. The defendant Was put in exclusive possession of the loft. The plaintiff did not reserve possession of any part of the loft or a right of entry therein. The loft had a separate entrance. The defendant Was put in exclusive possession of the loft. The plaintiff did not reserve possession of any part of the loft or a right of entry therein. The loft had a separate entrance. The customers of the defendant used the separate entrance to the loft during business hours and his stock of cloth remained in the loft after business hours. The plaintiff and defendant were both cloth merchants, and the only consideration for granting the licence was the payment of Rs. 250 per month. There is no evidence that the loft was given to the defendant out of sympathy or because of friendship, or relationship or any similar motive. It was stipulated that the plaintiff may terminate the agreement by giving one months clear notice, the agreement could not be terminated by notice of a shorter duration. 6. An attempt was deliberately made to camouflage the true nature of the agreement, by reciting in several clauses that the agreement was for leave and licence and to emphasise the pretence was also recited that the defendant was not to have any right as tenant or sub-tenant in respect of the loft. 7. At the trial the elder brother of the defendant was examined as witness. He stated that the agreement dated November 3, 1958 was intended to be an agreement of lease, but the plaintiff insisted that the agreement be drafted with the conditions set out therein. 8 Section 52 of the Easements Act defines a "Licence" : "Where one person grants to another, or to a definite Dumber of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do. in or upon the immovable property of the grantor. something which would, in the absence of such right be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or on interest in the property, the right is called a licence," Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines "lease" "A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised. or of money, a share of crops service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms * A licence confers a. right to do or continue to do something in or Upon immovable property of grantor which but for the grant of the right may be unlawful but it creates no estate or interest in the immovable property of the grantor. A lease on the other hand creates an interest in the property demised. 9. Intention of the parties to an instrument must be gathered from the terms of the agreement examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The description given by the parties may be evidence of the intention but is not decisive. Mere use of the words appropriate to the creation of a lease will not preclude the agreement operating as a licence. A recital that the agreement does not create a tenancy is also not decisive. The crucial test in each case is whether the instrument is intended to create or not to create an interest in the property the subject-matter of the agreement. If it is in fact intended to create an interest in the property it is a lease, if it does not, it is a licence. In determining whether the agreement creates a. lease or a licence the test of exclusive possession, though not decisive, is of significance. Mrs. M. N. Clubwala v Fida Hussain Saheb and others.1 10. The trial Court regarded exclusive possession of the premises given to the defendant as conclusive of the question whether the loft was in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The Court observed that on a consideration of the clauses of the agreement it was unable to reach a conclusion whether the agreement was intended to operate as a lease or as a licence but since exclusive possession was given it must be regarded a lease. The High Court considered all the covenants and the attendant circumstance and reached the conclusion that having record to the exclusive possession given to the defendant it was intended to confer an interest in the loft and on that account the agreement operated as a lease and not as a licence. 11. We have carefully considered the covenants in the light of the relevant surrounding circumstances. 11. We have carefully considered the covenants in the light of the relevant surrounding circumstances. We are unable to disagree with the view taken by the High Court that by the terms of the agreement an interest was created in the loft in favour of the defendant. 12. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.