and tenants. The case pleaded, is that, the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were inducted by the
Defendant No.3. The Defendant No.3 on the other
hand, surrendered the suit premises, which were given
to him by the Plaintiff on leave and licence basis on
14th August, 1969, which position has been recorded
on the reverse side of Exh.140. Once the Defendant
No.3 surrendered the suit premises to the Plaintiff,
the question of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claiming to
be legitimately in possession does not arise, much
less, on account of tenancy or deemed tenancy. The
question of deemed tenancy does not arise in this
case, as there was no subsisting licence as on the
relevant date. It is not open to the Defendant Nos.
1 and 2 to plead contrary to what has been stated in
the document Exh. 145, namely, the partnership deed,
which clearly records that the arrangement was not to
create tenancy right in favour of the Defendant Nos.1
and 2. However, in the oral evidence although the
execution of said document is admitted by the
Defendant No.1 but curiously enough he refused to
admit the contents thereof, although the said
document came from the custody of Defendant No.1
himself. In other words, it was neither a case of
assignment of a running business alongwith stock in
trade and goodwill nor a case of subsisting licence
