Judgement

HEGDE, J.: - There is little substance in this appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

2. The facts of this case are as follows:

Respondents 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act on October 17, 1951 seeking possession of the suit properties alleging that they had taken on lease the suit properties from Raja Harish Chandra but the appellants had taken wrongful possession of the same in October 1950. The appellants resisted the suit on various grounds. In particular they contended that the suit properties had been leased to their predecessors by the agent of Raja Harish Chandra in 1946 and ever since then their predecessor and thereafter they have been in possession of the same. They further contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court upheld the lease in favour of the appellants and consequently it concluded that the lease in favour of respondents 1 and 2 was not valid. It also came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 took up the matter in appeal to the Additional Commissoner. The Additional Commiss