P.R. Sharma, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 28th of December, 1957 passed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class Gwalior, in civil original suit No. 447 of 1955.
(2.)THE suit out of which the present appeal arises was based on the following allegations: The defendant on 21 -8 -1954 took the plaintiff's house on license for 11 months agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 50 for use and occupation thereof in addition to water charges. The defendant paid the charges for use and occupation till 31 -5 -1955 and the water charges till September 1954. The period of license expired the on 20 -7 -55 but the defendant did not vacate the premises in his occupation. The plaintiff, therefore, served the defendant with a notice on 16 -9 -1955 demanding possession and payment of arrears of the aforesaid charges. Since the defendant did not Comply with the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff sued him for ejectment and charges for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 182 -4 -0 for the period from 1 -6 -1955 to 20 -10 -1955, water charges amounting to Rs. 102 -4 -0 from September 1954 and Rs. 3 by way of interest on the aforesaid dues.
The defendant in his written statement admitted to have taken the plaintiff's house as a licensee. He, however, denied that he had agreed to pay water charges or interest on the arrears of charges for use and occupation and water charges. He further contended that he had remitted the amount of rent due by money order, but the same was refused by the plaintiff. He, therefore, contended that he had not made any default in payment of rent. Lastly he contended that he was on the date occupier of the premises under his occupation and that the plaintiff had no right to seek his ejectment therefrom.

(3.)THE trial court at first framed an issue whether the defendant was a licensee of the premises in question as alleged in para 1 of the plaint. But on an objection being raised to this issue it was deleted by the order of the court dated 10 -4 -1956. Thereafter the parties led their evidence. The trial court by its judgment held that defendant had failed to prove that he had become a lessee of the plaintiff. It also held that the defendant was liable to pay charges for use and occupation from 1 -6 -1955 onwards together with water charges as claimed by the plaintiff and interest in the sum of Rs. 2 -4 -only. It, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment and for recovery of the aforesaid charges till delivery of possession after deducting therefrom the sum of Rs. 2001 deposited by the defendant along with his written statement.