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”) under Section 15-A thereof. It is the Defendant s’ case that the Defendant s paid compensation in respect of the suit premises in Janua ry 1973 and thereafter. Had the Plaintiffs terminated the licence in December 1972, they would not have accepted the compensation. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that the amount accepted from the Defendant s is not by way of compens ation but by way of damages for wrongful occupation of the suit premises after the licence was terminated. There is nothing in writing to show that fact.

2. After the Defendant s secured protection under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 as licensees / s u b- tenant s in possession of the premises on 1.2.1973, the Defendant s, by their Notice dated 29.8.2003 to the Plaintiffs sent by Registered Post, claimed the protection by declaration of the Defendant s as tenant s and claimed to pay the rent rateably to the Plaintiffs in proportion to the amount paid by the Plaintiffs to the landlord. The Notice sent by the Defendant s on 29.8.1973 is Exhibit- 5.

3. In reply to that notice, the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys claimed the termination of the licence orally made in the presence of the aforesaid two persons. The Plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant s as trespas ser s thereon. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that the Defendant s were to pay the Plaintiffs’ licence fees initially at the rate of Rs.1000 / - per month for the first one and half years and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1500 / - per month for the remainder of two and half years of the term of the licence. The Defendant s only paid the licence fees at the rate of Rs.1000 / - per month continuously and hence, fell in arrears. It was, therefore, that the Plaintiffs terminated the licence.

4. The execution of the licence is admitted. The Plaintiffs have to prove the termination of the licence to claim possession from the Defendant s as trespas ser s upon their property. The Defendant s have to show that the licence continued in order to claim protection of the Bombay Rent Act.

5. Based upon the respective pleadings of the parties, Justice M.S. Rane (as he then was) framed the following issues :-

ISSUES

1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this Suit.

2.Whether the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Defendants.

3.Whether the Plaintiffs prove that licences granted to the Defendant s have been terminated and /or revoked and /or cancelled.

4.Whether the Defendants prove that the alleged leave and licence Agreement dated 15 th Janua ry 1971 is a colourable document not made to be acted upon.

5. In the alternative, whether the Defendant s further prove that the said Agreement of leave and licence was in subsistence as on 1st February 1973 and therefore they are entitled t