JUDGMENT D. DASH, J. - This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’) has been filed questioning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in Title Appeal No.32/41 of 2001-2002. 2. The respondent no.1 as the plaintiff has filed the suit, i.e. Title Suit No.17/1997 praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining this appellant (defendant no.1) and respondent no.2 (defendant No.2) from evicting him from the suit-telephone booth situated at Rourkela Railway Station and not to interfere in the possession of the same by the plaintiff. The suit having been decreed, this appellant as the unsuccessful defendant no.1 suffering from the said decree of permanent injunction restraining it from evicting the respondent No.1-plaintiff from the suit-telephone booth situated at Rourkela Railway Station, had carried an First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The lower appellate Court having refused to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff, the present appeal has been filed. 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court. 4. Plaintiffs case is that on 24.01.1986 he had applied for allotment of a space on the Railway Station of Rourkela for installation of a telephone booth and as per the verbal direction of the defendant no.2, request was made to the Telephone District Manager, Rourkela to permit the plaintiff for installation of such booth. On receipt of the said letter by the defendant no.2, the plaintiff submitted an application on 11.04.1986 for providing him a space at the Rourkela Railway Station. The place had been selected before hand by the defendant no.2. Accordingly the I.O.W., Rourkela had prepared a sketch map which had been handed over to the plaintiff for going ahead with necessary construction for which the defendant no.2 had also accorded permission for being so placed on the space of 9’ x 7’ = 63 square feet. The plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs.100/- as annual rent w.e.f. 18.07.1986 and an equal amount towards security deposit. The same having been complied with, the defendant no.2 instructed the plaintiff to make the telephone booth decorative and attractive by investing money. 5. The plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs.100/- as annual rent w.e.f. 18.07.1986 and an equal amount towards security deposit. The same having been complied with, the defendant no.2 instructed the plaintiff to make the telephone booth decorative and attractive by investing money. 5. The plaintiff accordingly claims to have constructed a room over that 63 square feet. Necessary electric connection was also given to the said booth after the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.709/- On 14.04.1986, the plaintiff’s application dated 11.04.1986 was forwarded to the Director, Telecom, Sambalpur recommending for consideration of the case, out of turn basis. Finally, telephone was installed in the said booth to provide such facility to the general public. Since then, the plaintiff claims to be accordingly running the telephone booth at Rourkela Railway Station. However, when vide letter dated 14/17.03.1997 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Railway, Chakradharpur, the plaintiff was to vacate the premises within a month from the date of its receipt for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. 6. The defendant no.2 in his written statement denied the factum of allotment of any space by the Railway Administration in the Rourkela Railway Station to the plaintiff for construction of a telephone booth. It is stated that the plaintiff was the agent of City Booking Counter of Railways situated at Sector-18 Market, Rourkela and in order to make the information available to the general public as regards the availability of the railway tickets in the Booking Counter, a PNT Telephone connection had been provided to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff subsequently constructed the booth without the permission of the Railway Authority and installed the telephone with S.T.D./I.S.D. facilities fixing the monitor for providing metered bills to the users for his own earning without the knowledge of the defendant no.2. In view of all these, it is stated that the plaintiff has no right to get a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for. 7. The trial Court framing as many as seven issues has rightly proceeded to first take up issue no.6 as regards the plaintiff’s entitlement to run the Telephone Booth at the Railway Station, Rourkela, for decision. In view of all these, it is stated that the plaintiff has no right to get a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for. 7. The trial Court framing as many as seven issues has rightly proceeded to first take up issue no.6 as regards the plaintiff’s entitlement to run the Telephone Booth at the Railway Station, Rourkela, for decision. Referring to the evidence on record, the trial Court has concluded that the order of the Railway Authority for removal of the S.T.D. booth of the plaintiff from the Rourkela Railway Station is illegal and contrary to law. With such finding, the defendants have been permanently restrained from evicting the plaintiff and prevent him from running the said Telephone Booth. The defendant no.2 being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had then carried the first appeal. Having lost in the appeal, the present second appeal has come to be filed. 8. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the Courts below have erred in law by holding that on the basis of Ext.5, the plaintiff has acquired a permanent non-evictable right in so far as the P & T Telephone Booth standing over the Rourkela Platform Concourse is concerned ? (2) Whether the Court are right in granting the relief of permanent injunction against the eviction of the plaintiff from the said P & T Telephone booth standing over the Rourkela Platform Concourse ? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even accepting for a moment, the document (Ext.5) as it stands permitting the plaintiff to put up at his own cost a P & T Telephone Booth at the Concourse at Rourkela Platform over a space of 9’ x 7’ and run the same for use by public for their reservation and other urgent need; the plaintiff cannot be said to have acquired a non-evictable right over the space treating that as an irrevocable license and such permission has to be taken to be purely temporary removable on demand for the requirement of the said space over the railway platform by all concerned. His submission is that in the worst case, it can be said to be a temporary license, clothing the plaintiff with the status as such and the defendants cannot be restrained permanently from asking the plaintiff to vacate the said space. His submission is that in the worst case, it can be said to be a temporary license, clothing the plaintiff with the status as such and the defendants cannot be restrained permanently from asking the plaintiff to vacate the said space. He submitted that the suit as laid for the relief claimed is misconceived and the Courts below have erred in law by granting a decree by permanently restraining the plaintiff from running the Telephone Booth over the space on the Railway Platform. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits all in favour of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. According to him since the plaintiff was allotted that space, his occupation as such has been rightly protected. 11. Admitted factual position stand that the plaintiff as on the date of institution of the suit was running a telephone booth on the Rourkela Platform Concourse covering space of 9’ x 7’. Accepting for a moment that it was so permitted by the Railway Authority for the purpose, the status of the plaintiff can only be said to be as that of a licensee. The question now arises as to if it can be said in the factual settings of the case that he has acquired any non-evictable right. Entire case was presented by the plaintiff on being accepted on its face value, does not satisfy the requirement of the provision of Section 60 of Easements Act, 1882 to say that such grant of permission was coupled with a transfer of property as remaining in force and that the plaintiff acting upon the said license, has executed a work of a permanent character incurring the expenses in the execution. Judicial notice has to be taken that such a permission to a person to put up a stall/cabin on the Railway platform can never be for eternity as the user of the said space by the Railways may arise at any moment for any such immediate situation so emerging. Judicial notice has to be taken that such a permission to a person to put up a stall/cabin on the Railway platform can never be for eternity as the user of the said space by the Railways may arise at any moment for any such immediate situation so emerging. That apart, placement of a Telephone Booth for facilitating general public for using the telephone with S.T.D./I.S.D. facility on the Railway Platform Concourse cannot be taken to be a construction of permanent character in the absence of any express provision in the permission for the purpose and it cannot also be said that the Railway Administration has granted the said permission coupled with a transfer of property continuing to be in force. Moreover, the space even if is so allotted to a person on the Railway Platform for use in a particular manner and to serve particular purpose can never be conceived for a moment to be a permanent grant. Said letter of permission, Ext.5 being given a reading does provide no hint at all in the above light in favour of the claim of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the substantial questions of law are answered against the respondent no.1. The suit as laid for the reliefs claimed is found to be misconceived. Therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 12. In the wake of aforesaid, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiff’s suit stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost is passed. Ordered accordingly.