GAIROLA & LAKMALI

The parties to this proceeding were Gairola and Lakmali. The dispute concerned an application for an order for possession of a property located at 10/12 Acacia Avenue, Lakemba, NSW. The application was heard by Hartnett J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant, Gairola, was entitled to an order for possession of the property. This required the Court to consider the nature of the agreement between the parties and whether it constituted a lease or a licence, and if it was a lease, whether it had been validly terminated.

Hartnett J reasoned that the agreement between Gairola and Lakmali was a licence, not a lease. His Honour applied the principles established in cases such as *Radaich v Smith* (1959) 101 CLR 209, which distinguish between a lease and a licence based on the grant of exclusive possession. The Court found that the agreement did not grant exclusive possession to Lakmali, but rather a personal right to occupy the premises for a specific purpose. Consequently, the agreement was not a lease and could not be terminated as such.

As the agreement was determined to be a licence, the applicant was not entitled to an order for possession based on the termination of a lease. The Court therefore dismissed the application for possession.