JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Plaintiff, who lost in both the courts below, has come up in second appeal. The two substantial questions of law formulated in the Memorandum of Second Appeal and on which, notice was issued, are: (a) whether the finding of the courts below that Ext. A1 agreement is a transaction of tenancy is legal and proper? and (b) whether the courts below acted according to law in refusing relief in respect, of plaint B schedule movables ? 2. Appellant plaintiff is the owner of a shop building at Trivandrum. He was running a hotel there. Licence was also in his name. While so under Ext. A1 agreement dated 15/07/1976, executed by the respondent, he entrusted the entire building along with the movables and the hotel licence to the respondent for the conduct of a hotel for a period of three years The mesne profits agreed to be paid by the respondent every month was Rs. 180/-. Respondent was permitted to use the hotel licence obtained in the name of the appellant and the appellant undertook to renew the licence every year. Respondent also undertook not to assign his rights and he agreed that after the term of three years, he will surrender the premises. The document is nomenclatured as an agreement. Appellant claimed that this is a licence of the shop along with the movables as a running business for a term of three years and that it will not come within the ambit of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The claim of the respondent is that Ext. A1 is a lease deed and he is entitled to the protection of a lessee including the benefits of the rent control legislation. On this question, both the courts disagreed with the appellant and accepted the contentions of the respondent. 3. Evidently, the wording of Ext. A1 and the framing of suit as one for mandatory injunction instead of moving the Rent Control Court for eviction are short cuts intended to overreach the rent control legislation. The pet name "mesne profits" will not convert the agreed monthly payment to anything other than rent. Though the courts below rejected the prayer for mandatory injunction, which, in this case, is evidently a disguise for eviction, "mesne profits" was correctly understood as 'rent' and it was decreed. The pet name "mesne profits" will not convert the agreed monthly payment to anything other than rent. Though the courts below rejected the prayer for mandatory injunction, which, in this case, is evidently a disguise for eviction, "mesne profits" was correctly understood as 'rent' and it was decreed. That part of the decree, confirmed by the appellate court, is under challenge by respondent in a memorandum of cross objection. 4. The real issue is whether Ext. A1 is a tenancy which could be terminated only by recourse to the rent control legislation or it is only a licence which could be put an end to by reentry. The lines of distinction separating a lease from a licence are well settled and I do not think it necessary to expatiate on those aspects. If an interest in immovable property entitling exclusive possession and enjoyment is treated it is a lease. If permission of user without right to exclusive possession alone is given it is only a licence. Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to consider whether Ext. A1 satisfies the requirements of S.105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The question is only whether it attracts the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable. It is wider than a lease under the Transfer of Property Act. Rentals comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only the building and its appurtenances but also the furnishings, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord (Kamani Properties Ltd. v. Miss. Augustine and others, AIR 1957 SC 309 ). In a broad sense in a given case a tenant under the Act may also take in a licencee liable to pay rent for use and occupation. H. S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality ( AIR 1962 SC 554 ) wherein Their Lordships were not prepared to hold that licensees will come within the sweep of tenants may not be strictly applicable to the present case. Their Lordships were only considering the case of a licensee occupying a room in a hotel and whether he could be said to be a tenant. Their Lordships were only considering the case of a licensee occupying a room in a hotel and whether he could be said to be a tenant. In this case, in order to succeed, it is not necessary for the respondent to show that a licenses will come under the definition of tenant in the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 5. The rent control legislation is intended to protect tenants against unmerited evictions and oppressive rents especially when there is dearth of accommodation. Fair rent alone could be realised even in cases where the tenant was forced by circumstances to agree for unconscionable rent. Eviction is restricted subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. There will always be tendencies to over reach the beneficial legislation. In spite of the wordings, it is the duty of the court to see what actually the transaction evidenced by the wordings is. The nomenclature of the document as agreement or what is to be monthly paid by the tenant being described as mesne profits instead of rent are not decisive. In effect, the document is only a rent deed and what is to be paid is only rent for use and occupation. Tenant was put in exclusive possession for three years with liability to pay the agreed rent. PW 1 himself had to admit that exclusive possession was given and he had no right of entry. Making use of his licence or movables in consideration of which also the quantum of rent was fixed will not make the transaction anything less than a rent arrangement. There is no point in saying that a running concern in its entirety was given and hence it will not be a rent arrangement of the building attracting the rent control legislation. Hotel business being conducted is in pursuance of the purpose for which the building and materials were taken on rent. Use of the licence for that purpose is also part of the agreement. The transaction evidently attracts the rent control legislation. Refusal of the prayer for mandatory injunction is justified. 6. Hotel business being conducted is in pursuance of the purpose for which the building and materials were taken on rent. Use of the licence for that purpose is also part of the agreement. The transaction evidently attracts the rent control legislation. Refusal of the prayer for mandatory injunction is justified. 6. When the building and movables were rented out under a single transaction and when the parties were not at issue whether the movables alone could be returned, the appellant cannot complain that the courts below went wrong in not granting a decree for return of the movables atleast, especially when he did not approach the court in the proper way for terminating the tenancy and getting possession. A rent arrangement of building with movables or other amenities is not unknown. The cross objection against the grant of decree for rent is also without merit. Admitted rent till date of suit alone was decreed. Appeal and cross objection are dismissed. No costs