JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since common question of facts and law arise for consideration, therefore, these petitions were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short the ''Act'') have filed the instant writ petitions praying therein for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents under the said Act. For better appreciation of the issue and to maintain clarity, the facts of CWP No. 2830 of 2011 are being made the basis of this decision. 3. The Municipal Council, Nalagarh had initially leased the property in question alongwith other plots in favour of M/s Dehati Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. However, somewhere in the year 1955-56, the Society went into liquidation. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan was appointed as liquidator to sell the property. In the auction so conducted one Bishnu Ram great grandfather of the petitioners purchased the building belonging to it, which was situated on land bearing Khasra No. 180/2 measuring 52 x 35 feet. 4. On 6.12.1980, the District Collector, Solan issued a sale certificate worth Rs. 50,100/- in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. 5. On 24.12.1980, an intimation to this effect was sent by the Tehsildar, Nalagarh to the President, M.C., Nalagarh stating that necessary entries be made in the record. He also intimated that the purchaser i.e. Bishnu Ram is only the owner of the building but the land shall remain in ownership of the M.C. 6. On 28.12.1980, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to Bishnu Ram to vacate the land on which the building was situated, and had been purchased by him. This was followed by another reminder dated 19.2.1981. 7. Bishnu Ram vide application dated 26.3.1981, requested respondent No. 1 to transfer the land in his name. 8. Respondent No.1 vide resolution No. 4 dated 5.2.1981 recommended that the land in question could be leased out for 5 years at the rate of Rs. 186/- per month and this report was accepted/approved by respondent No.1 on 30.3.1981. 9. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 13.4.1981 conveyed its approval/acceptance to Bishnu Ram and asked him to execute the lease deed. 10. On 6.6.1981, lease agreement came to be executed by the Bishnu Ram with respondent No. 1. 11. 186/- per month and this report was accepted/approved by respondent No.1 on 30.3.1981. 9. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 13.4.1981 conveyed its approval/acceptance to Bishnu Ram and asked him to execute the lease deed. 10. On 6.6.1981, lease agreement came to be executed by the Bishnu Ram with respondent No. 1. 11. On 17.6.1986, Bagga Ram son of Bishnu Ram informed respondent No. 1 that his father had expired on 17.6.1986 and he being only son, requested respondent No. 1 to transfer the plot in his name. 12. On 14.4.1987, respondent No. 1 reported/recommended that the land which was rented out in favour of Bishnu Ram be transferred in the name of Bagga Ram for 15 years at monthly rental of Rs. 372/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and the documents be sent to the government. 13. This report was accepted by the then President, who ordered respondent No. 1 to prepare a proposal so that the same could be submitted to local self government. 14. An agreement was signed on the same day i.e. 14.4.1987, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that this proposal was in fact sent to the government or not. 15. On 16.4.1987, respondent No. 1 issued a letter to Bagga Ram intimating him that the plot will be transferred in his name for the maximum period of 15 years at the monthly rental of Rs. 372/- per month subject to the approval of the government of Himachal Pradesh. 16. Vide application dated 30.9.2001, Bagga Ram requested respondent No. 1 to permit him to renovate the structure and to partition it into four parts. 17. The application was considered in general meeting of the M.C. on 22.10.2001 and the request of the applicant was accepted vide resolution No. 109. This permission was subject to the condition that Bagga Ram would not carry out any external addition to the existing structure. 18. 17. The application was considered in general meeting of the M.C. on 22.10.2001 and the request of the applicant was accepted vide resolution No. 109. This permission was subject to the condition that Bagga Ram would not carry out any external addition to the existing structure. 18. Accordingly, Bagga Ram submitted his applications (four separate applications dated 30.10.2001) to respondent No. 1 stating therein that on the leased land he was running business in different shops with Shri Kapil Dev son of Shri Raj Kumar, Shri Lakhbir Singh son of Ajab Singh, Shri Rajinder Kumar son of Shri Gulshan Kumar Grover and Shri Raj Krishan son of Mohar Chand, but due to ill health and old age he has handed over the possession of the shops to his partners and has taken his share/cost of the structure from them. He requested the M.C. to transfer the said shops in the names of aforesaid persons. This application was duly supported with the affidavit of Bagga Ram wherein it was stated that the plot (four separate parts of the main plot) be transferred in the name of the partners separately. 19. At the same time, the partners vide their separation applications also made similar request to respondent No. 1 to transfer the plots in their respective names. This was followed by a building plan submitted by Bagga Ram on 2.1.2002 for the approval of respondent No. 1, which was duly approved by respondent No. 1 as conveyed on 1.3.2002. 20. In response to the application submitted on 31.10.2001 the Executive Officer, M.C., Nalagarh vide its letter dated 19.3.2004 informed the partners of Bagga Ram that respondent No. 1 had decided to transfer the shops for which each one of the applicant was asked to deposit Rs. 10,000/- transfer fee and Rs. 2,00,000/- as security and Rs. 4000/-monthly rental. 21. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 vide its resolution No. 500, dated 7.9.2005 considered the case and decided to charge monthly rental at the rate of Rs. 1500/- and asked each of the applicant to deposit the dues but they did not deposit the same. 22. On 31.5.2006, respondent No. 1 held a meeting and vide resolution No. 143 it was decided that legal advice be taken from standing counsel for evicting all the four persons. 23. 1500/- and asked each of the applicant to deposit the dues but they did not deposit the same. 22. On 31.5.2006, respondent No. 1 held a meeting and vide resolution No. 143 it was decided that legal advice be taken from standing counsel for evicting all the four persons. 23. Respondent No. 1, thereafter vide notice dated 9.11.2006 issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminated the licence of all the four partners w.e.f. 30.11.2006 and they, in turn, were directed to handover the vacant possession on 1.12.2006. 24. On failure of all the four persons to handover the vacant possession, respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under the Act by serving a legal notice on all the four persons. The case so instituted by respondent No. 1 was eventually decided in its favour vide order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh to this effect on 11.3.2010. The affected persons filed appeal in the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 21.4.2010, however, the same was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2010, constraining the son of the original allottee Bagga Ram and other partners to file the instant writ petition. 25. Respondent No. 1 has filed its reply wherein the factual matrix has not been denied, however, it is submitted that since the petitioner sub let the premises, thus he was liable to be evicted. It is further averred that the lease of the property was given to Bagga Ram for a period of only 5 years w.e.f. 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2002 and therefore after the said period the petitioner has no right to remain in possession, much less, sub-let the same in favour of petitioner(s) No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 26. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, would reveal that the only ground for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner is contained in para-7, which reads thus:- "7. I have gone through the Lower Court record and documents before me. This is covered within the four corners of the orders cited above of the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, contention of the appellant that the Rent Control Act would be applicable is not legally tenable. Second, it was not upto the appellant to say that he would be depositing only Rs. This is covered within the four corners of the orders cited above of the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, contention of the appellant that the Rent Control Act would be applicable is not legally tenable. Second, it was not upto the appellant to say that he would be depositing only Rs. 700/- per month and neither to accept nor reject the Councils'' offer for depositing of Rs. 1500/- per month which had been arrived at by a Statutory Body after due deliberation. Further, the contention of the Lower Court with respect to unauthorized occupation of the appellant has been proved which has not been refuted by the appellant as the lease had not been renewed after 30.03.2002 and appellant had unauthorisedly sublet the premises. The order of the Lower Court is extremely detailed and has been arrived at after giving complete opportunity to the present appellants. The appellant has failed to bring out as to how the Lower Court order is at variance with the facts and legal provisions of facts not in consonance the orders cited by the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh." 27. It is more than settled that the first appeal is the valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by the law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. 28. The judgment of the appellate authority must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reason on all the issues arising alongwith the contention put-forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate authority. 29. Even while agreeing with the findings of the original authority, the expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate authority for shirking the duty cast on it. 30. This unfortunately is what the Divisional Commissioner has precisely done. Instead of looking at the substance of the order, it appears to have been influenced by the length of the order and, therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained. 31. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the Divisional Commissioner has held the petitioner to be an unauthorized sublettee of the premises on the ground that the lease has not been renewed after 30.3.2009. 31. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the Divisional Commissioner has held the petitioner to be an unauthorized sublettee of the premises on the ground that the lease has not been renewed after 30.3.2009. However, as per the admitted case of respondents No. 1 and 2, the request of the so called sublettees for transfer of the shops in their names were considered by the M.C. vide Resolution No. 563 dated 27.9.2005 and the sublettees were directed to deposit rent of the shops at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month alongwith transfer fee and security amount and to execute rent agreement in favour of respondent No. 1. It is only on account of non-deposits of rent amount, transfer fee, security amount and non execution of the rent agreement, the possession of these so-called sub-lettees have been held to be unauthorized. However, the fact of the matter is that, in principal, respondent No. 1 had agreed to let out these premises subject to certain conditions as enumerated above. 32. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to section 60 of the Easements Act, which reads thus:- "60.License when revocable.- A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless- (a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force; (b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution 33. As observed earlier, it is not in dispute that it was the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner No. 1 Bagga Ram, who had purchased the building over the land belonging to respondent No. 1 bearing Khasra No. 180/2 in the auction conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, who has been appointed as a Liquidator and thereafter sale certificate was issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. 34. It is further not in dispute that the building in question was transferred in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and he was also permitted to renovate the structure and partition the same in four parts. 35. It is further not in dispute that the building in question devolved from generation to generation in the family of the petitioner by inheritance without any attempt to evict the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. 36. 35. It is further not in dispute that the building in question devolved from generation to generation in the family of the petitioner by inheritance without any attempt to evict the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. 36. Therefore, in such circumstances, the licence in favour of petitioner No. 1 had become irrevocable in terms of section 60 of the Easements Act, therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot evict petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 from the premises in dispute. 37. Once the petitioner No. 1 was permitted to occupy and enjoy the building permanently and even permitted to renovate the structure and partition it into four parts then it would be reasonable to infer an implied condition that the license was irrevocable and petitioner No. 1 was permitted to occupy and use the premises and no unreasonable restriction upon the user thereof could have been imposed. 38. Even equity will presume the existence of condition of the licence by plain implication to show that license was perpetual and irrevocable and therefore, the licensor i.e. respondent No. 1 could not revoke the licence or evict the petitioner, so long as the petitioner continued to carry on the purpose for which license/lease had been granted in his favour. 39. Apart from what has been observed above, it would be noticed that government itself has not approved the action taken by respondent No. 1 and that is so reflected in the letter dated 17.8.2011 from Principal Secretary (UD) to the Executive Officer to respondent No. 1, wherein, it has been observed that the action of respondent No. 1 in determining the rent of the shops and demand thereof was unjust, unfair and absolutely wrong. It would be apposite to reproduce the entire contents of the letter, which reads thus:- "No.UD-F-(10)1/2009 Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Department of Urban Development From The Pr. Secretary (UD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. To The Executive Officer, Municipal council, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Dated: Shimla-2 the 17-08-2011 Subject:- Regarding fixation of rent of shops at Nalagarh. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. M.C./NLG/201, dated 4-5-2011 on the subject cited above and to say that: 1. the original structure/shop was purchased by Sh. Bishnu Ram father of Sh. Bagga Ram in 1980, in an open auction. Dated: Shimla-2 the 17-08-2011 Subject:- Regarding fixation of rent of shops at Nalagarh. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. M.C./NLG/201, dated 4-5-2011 on the subject cited above and to say that: 1. the original structure/shop was purchased by Sh. Bishnu Ram father of Sh. Bagga Ram in 1980, in an open auction. The Land under shop was leased out to him and Ground Rent was fixed, which was being charged by the MC, 2. the Ground Rent was enhanced by the M.C. from time to time even after the death of the original purchaser, the rent of the building/structure was never claimed/fixed/charged by the MC, 3. the structure/shop was renovated/reconstructed with the permission of the MC into four part by the occupant/owner at his own, 4. the MC conveyed the decision on 19.3.2004 after about 2-1/2 years on the application submitted on 31.10.2001 to change the lease, 5. the decision of the MC on fixing the rent of four shops @ Rs. 4000/- PM (which was reduced to Rs. 1500/- PM on 7-9-2005) was contrary to the facts, 6. the case of change of lease was not examined by the MC properly. The MC wrongly put the matter before the Council and the Council took the decision to charge rent of four shops @ Rs. 4000/- PM later on reduced to Rs. 1500/- PM for each shop, resulting thereby the matter involved in unnecessary litigation, 7. neither the shops are owned by the MC nor were constructed by the MC. As such, the MC cannot fix or charge the rent for the shops, 8. the MC can only re-fix the Ground Rent of the land (Land on which shops are constructed), 9. the action determining the rent of the shops and to demand thereof is unjust, unfair and absolutely wrong. You are, therefore, requested to reconsider the matter in view of the above points. Yours faithfully, Under Secretary (UD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh" 40. Therefore, taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained and therefore deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 41. Yours faithfully, Under Secretary (UD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh" 40. Therefore, taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained and therefore deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 41. However, at the same time, even the unilateral and self serving stand adopted by the petitioners whereby they have not deposited the rent, transfer fee, security amount and further not executed the rent agreement in favour of respondent No. 1 as per resolution No. 500 dated 27-9-2005 can also not be countenanced till and so long the action of respondent No. 1 is not declared to be illegal by a competent Court or authority. 42. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to deposit the rent of the shops and transfer fee alongwith 9% interest from the day it was due till the date of deposit. The petitioners are further directed to pay security amount and execute rent agreement with respondent No. 1 by 30.9.2017, failing which the order of eviction shall automatically, without reference to Court, become operative and the petitioners would liable to be evicted in terms thereof. 43. With these observations, these petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.