the case, the burden is on the defendant and the said observation by the First Appellate Court is not correct and the defendant need not prove his case, but the fact is that when there is clear admission on the part of the defendant that he was a licensee under the vendor of the plaintiffs and also in respect of shop premises which he had purchased and he categorically stated that he was a licensee under the vendor of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule premises is concerned and identity of the property cannot be disputed, since the defendant categorically admitted and no doubt, the counsel brought to notice of this Court that while giving reply later denied that he is not a licensee, the Court has to take note of unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant, particularly in Ex.P7 and the said notice was given immediately after issuance of the notice and the fact that license was terminated by issuing the notice in terms of Ex.P5 is not in dispute and both the Courts have taken note of the material on record and given fact finding and hence, the question of admitting the second appeal does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any ground to frame substantial question of law and the finding of both the Courts is not perverse and the same is
