the plaint where the Plaintiffs have asserted that on
account of old age first Defendant was helped by the
second defendant in the business of tailoring and
that the first Defendant had later on stopped
attending the business and the second defendant was
looking after and carrying the business of tailoring.
Relying on this averment, it is contended that in
that case the Defendant No.2 was in exclusive control
of the tailoring business conducted from the suit
premises and if it is so, his status would be that of
a person at best unlawfully inducted by the Defendant
No.1. The argument once again will have to be stated
to be rejected. It is not the case of the Defendant
No.2 that for using the part of the premises he was
paying any consideration either to the Defendant No.1
or for that matter to the Plaintiffs. On the other
hand, the defendant No.2 was and always have been
claiming through the Defendant No.1 being his son.
In other words, the defendant No.2 was not claiming
independent right on his own but only through the
Defendant No.1 who has been held to be a gratuitous
licensee. Thus understood, even this submission does
not commend to me. Accordingly, the Petition should
fail. The same is dismissed.
