B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) The suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No, 1 against the appellants and respondent No. 2 from the premises No. 120/2. Kamla Nagar, Kanpur, alleging that the defendants were licencee of the same. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In appeal by the appellants, the decree has been maintained. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Murlidhar, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
(3.) It has been argued that the courts below have erred in recording a finding that the appellants are licencees. That in fact they are tenants. It has been argued that exclusive possession was given to the appellants by letter dated 1.3.1970. That since then the respondent No. 1 even had no right to enter in the plot. That the plot was taken for storing of L.P.G. cylinders for which the godown is approved by Controller of Explosive, which show that they were tenants. That in terms of the letter, it is mentioned that the appellants shall not sublet the premises. That P.W. 1. Shiv Kumar Pandey has also stated that the premises was let out to the gas agency.;