A gentlement currently 82 years old bought a land in Salt Lake, Kolkata (these are government leases) from the government in 1981. In 1992 he asked one of his nephews (his older sister's son), who was looking for a place to stay wih his wife and appeared extremely close to his uncle, to construct a house on that land and verbally (nothing is written at all) told him that he could stay the first floor and uncle and aunt would use the mezzanine along with the living room, kitchen and bathroom with them, to which they gladly agreed. Both parties spent money, the nephew a larger part. The house is under uncle's name (completion certificate) and uncle pays the tax. The house was completed in 1996. Uncle supervised part of the construction so also did the nephew. After entering the house, I suppose greed took over, and the nephew started claiming that since he had spent a large sum of money, the house is his, and told the uncle to remove their stuff from the mezzanine room. Some relatives and friends intervened but to no effect. Uncle was left with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
In 2006, uncle obtained a judgment in his favor. The judge ruled that without any title to the land or the property, the nephew's status was that of a licensee. Since the Easement Act is not applicable to the state of West Bengal, the judge said: "The Easement Act, 1882 and its Section 60 as well finds its applicability in West Bengal on the basis of the principle of Justice Equity and good conscience in view of decision reported in 93 C.W.N. page 4. The moment the defendant knowing himself to be a licensee in the suit property denied and/or attempted to deny the title and interest of the plaintiff-owner therein any equitable relief can hardly be extended to him. "The order was that the nephew should "...hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff within 4 years from the date of passing the decree." that is, by 2010 (4 years from the date of the judgment in 2006) or else the uncle could execute the order and evict him.
The nephew filed an appeal in 2006 and after long 5 years, past the date of the executable order, in November 2011 the Court allowed his appeal and the prior judgment and decree are "set aside." The Single Judge ruled that the nephew "must be extended protection of Section 60 (b) of the Easement Act..."
This Appeal judge is upholding 60(b) in the nephew's favor. Easement Act says:
