1. The Plaintiffs admittedly licensed their premises to the Defendant s under the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 15.1.1971, Exhibit- B. The Agreement is for a period of three years. It would expire by efflux of time on 14.1.1974. It is the Plaintiffs’ contention that they orally terminated the Licence Agreement in December 1972 in the presence of two persons in Defendant No.1- Firm viz. one Dattatraya Chintaman Khandkar and Prabhakar Shivshanka r Bandodkar . No notice of termination is sent to the Defendant s. The Defendant s have denied the termination. It is the Defendant s’ contention that the Defendant s continued to be the licensees under the Agreement, Exhibit- B dated 15.1.1971 for a period of three years which was the term of the licence have continued in possession thereafter. It is their contention that the case of termination of licence made out by the Plaintiffs is false, dishonest and made only with a view to claim possession from the Defendant s after the Defendant s became the sub- tenant s of the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises upon the amendment to the Bombay (Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (“Bombay Rent Act”) unde