of that contention of the plaintiffs, the defendants
contention is that they are tenants of the premises.
This contention is based upon an agreement purported
to have been executed by the deceased Hajiani
Sugrabai Durani on one hand and Shaikh Amin Shaikh
Chote on the other hand on 23.12.1968. This
agreement is entirely and completely denied by the
counsel for the defendants. Whatever that may be,
the claim of the tenancy is based on this agreement.
So far as buisness is concerned the plaintiffs are
relying upon the agreement annexed with the plaint
as Exhibit ’B’. The defendants deny that agreement
in its entirety. However, the licences are issued
by the BMC, copies of which are filed with the
plaint, and copy of which is filed with the reply to
the notice of motion, shows Smt. Sugrabai as the
owner of the business and Ibrahim Shaikh Chote as
conductor. The defendants have nothing to show that
they are the owners of the business. The running
business is different thing from claiming any right
in the premsies as tenants. Therefore, when the
plaintiffs have strong prima facie case that they
are the owners of the business than the defendants
have to pay royalty to the plaintiffs.
