15.2 As regards a license not being heri t able, there is no dispute with regard to the s a id proposition of law. How e ver, it has come on record, which was dul y admitted by the defendant whi l e appearing as DW2 that he did not have cordial relations with his father, a s also with the plaintiff. It has also come o n record that criminal litigati o n had ensued between them and that even t he defendant had been chall a ned under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. on a c o mplaint of his father. In fac t , he was convicted also and sentenced to u n dergo imprisonment for four y e ars. He stated that he had been residing i n the disputed property as its o w ner without paying any rent and in the same breath also submitted that the p l aintiff had been calling upon him to vacate t h e disputed property. It, therefore, means that after the death of Nand Lal, t he defendant refused to part with the possession of the disputed proper t y. Here Section 54 of the E a sements Act would come in and there appe a rs to be an implied grant of license by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ha d this not been the case, there w ould have been no occasion for both sides t o have been quarrelling and litig a ting. 15.3 Co m ing to the third argument that s ince permanent construction had been raise d by the defendant, the provisions of Section 60(b) would come in and t h e license would not be revoc ab le, the same would not be available to the defendant, once he denied that he was a licensee under the plaintiff. He c a nnot be permitted to take bot h stands in the same breath. Even otherwise , no details of construction were produced and, therefore, the said argument w as rightly rejected by both Cou r ts. 15.4 As regards the maintainability of t h e suit, it was duly held by a coordinate Ben c h in the case of Jit Singh’s cas e (supra) that where there was an express rev o cation of a license despite wh i ch possession had not been
