“ (9) In my view, this does not appear to have been a proper approach to the problem, involved in this part of the case. It is true that the defendant has erected some pucca structures and has spent some money for the same, but it is hardly a proper inference to hold that the same was done by him acting on the license or within the terms of the license, granted by the plaintiff or his predecessor. In this view, even the principle, underlying the aforesaid statutory provision, would not apply, as the statute requires such act on the part of the licensee, acting on the license. From this stand-point, even the view of this Court, as expressed in Surnomoyee Peshakar v. Chunder Kumar Das, (1910) 12 Cal LJ 443, and Moti Lal v. Kalu Mandar, 19 Cal LJ 321: (AIR 1914 Cal 173). would not help the defendant and the latter would not be entitled even to compensation, far less to any protection from eviction. I may add here that on the point of protection of licensees from eviction, the above decisions of this Court seem to go against the view of the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in , and it may very well be contended, in view of these authorities, that, even when the licensee has made constructions and incurred expenditure, acting on the license, if the statute was not applicable, it may not be open to the court to apply the principle, underlying the same as that would be in conflict with the settled principle in this Court for the above point under the aforesaid two decisions.
