Court held that in  the present case, it is just not established how the business of the assessee was perceived to grow out of the property acquired by them by negotiating the eviction of the said occupants. In fact, through the negotiation the assessee acquired some kind of an enduring right of possession over the occupied area of the said premises surrendered to them by those occupants. It had the incidents of permanence. If an expenditure is incurred for possession of an asset or for right of a permanent character, then expenditure can be considered as capital in nature.