Short Note : 1. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the Gumti in dispute on the allegation that it was given to the appellants on licence, the fee being Rs. 150/- p.m. for carrying on the business of selling Pan and Cigarettes to those who visit the cinema. It was alleged that it was a temporary Gumti and was given on licence with the condition that the licence could be revoked at any time. It was further alleged that as the appellant-defendants were not treating the customers who visited the cinema house properly and as the respondent has obtained permission to construct pakka cinema house, the wants to remove the Gumti. It is alleged that therefore the licence was terminated on 1.7.1971. Mesne profits also have been claimed from 1.7.1971 at the rate of Rs. 10 per day. 2. The trial Court held that the open land was given but it was given on licence and therefore decreed the claim for possession of the open land beneath the Gumti only and mesne profits. On appeal, the learned lower appellate Court modified the decree and held that in fact it was the Gumti constructed that was given to the present appellants but that was on a licence and therefore maintained the decree for possession and mesne profits. 3. Admittedly, in the present case the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are that the appellants were put in exclusive possession of the premises that they have been in exclusive possession throughout that even during their absence the shop remained closed under lock and key at the appellants. There is yet another circumstance and that is that the premium is a monthly premium. Thus, these circumstances prima-facie establish that it was a lease and not a licence. The other circumstances which could be considered to negative this inference, which have been considered by the learned Court below are that it was given for catering the needs of Pan and Cigarettes of the visitors of the cinema house. But there is nothing to indicate that there was any term that the appellants should not sell these things to others. The learned Judge felt that this term indicated that the business was controlled by the owner. But there is nothing to indicate that any kind of control was maintained or was expected to be maintained by the owner of the premises. The learned Judge felt that this term indicated that the business was controlled by the owner. But there is nothing to indicate that any kind of control was maintained or was expected to be maintained by the owner of the premises. In fact, the learned Court below has not considered any other circumstance except this and this circumstance as discussed above does not negative the case of lease set up by the defendant-appellants. 4. It could not be said that the facts of the case cited are exactly similar to the facts in the present case and in fact no precedent could be cited on questions of fact as questions of fact have to be decided on the basis of the evidence in a particular case. As regards law, even this decision does not hold anything contrary to what has been stated above. It is therefore apparent that the learned Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the appellants are mere licensees. In the circumstances of the case discussed above the relationship between the appellants and respondent clearly establishes a lease. 5. It is not disputed that lease has not been determined, nor a suit has been filed for eviction on the basis of termination of the lease. Consequently, the decree for possession passed by both the Courts below could not be maintained. As the decree for possession could not be maintained even the decree for mesne profits could not be maintained. AIR 1965 SC 610 , AIR 1959 SC 1262 , 1952 All. ER 1199, relied on. AIR 1959 Mysore 89, referred to. Appeal allowed.