violation of an injunction order. The main contesting respondent therein is the brother of respondents 1 and 2 herein. Learned counsel submits that by the operation of the order passed by this Court, construction was made and therefore he is entitled to rely upon Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. In fact, the said contention has been rejected by the authorities below as the revision petitioner is only a tenant and even though the building had collapsed, the tenancy was never terminated and it stood revived. The question is whether the said finding is in any way wrong. The principle under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act cannot have any application here. The revision petitioner in R.C.R.Nos.166/2012 and 167/2012 is a building tenant which fact is accepted by him and he is not a licensee also. At any rate, the order passed by the Civil Court allowing restoration of the structure, cannot confer any right under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Govindan v. Rashid (2009 (1) KLT 997). In fact, this Court has held, after referring to Section 11(1) of the Act, that permanent tenancy means a tenancy in perpetuity from eviction or a tenancy which is to last for ever till its subject matter, the building exists and the revision petitioner by putting
