This revision is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge whereby she dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. The facts are as follows :

The plaintiff No.1 was engaged by the defendants as a sacristan and the plaintiff No. 2 as his assistant. They were the employees of the defendants. They came to be appointed in the year 1976. The defendant No. 1 is the head and administrator of the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs were working under the control and supervision of the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs were to assist the priest in the Church during the religious services and administration of sacraments. The plaintiff No. 2 was also required to do clerical work in connection with the function of the said Church. At times, the plaintiffs were required to work during night hours also. As a result of this, the defendants provided one room to the plaintiffs. The said room has a separate entrance and separate bathroom. The said room was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had stored their belongings in the said room. Some disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants. As a result of this, the defendant No.1 terminated the services of the plaintiffs with effect from 15-4-2000. During the time the plaintiffs were in service, it is contended that the defendants were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that since the plaintiffs did not vacate the suit house, the defendants broke open the lock of the plaintiffs' room, removed the belongings of the plaintiffs' and thus dispossessed the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit under section 6.

3. The defendants filed their written statement. They deny that the plaintiffs were their servants or the plaintiffs are their employees. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the regular employees of the defendants. They were merely given honorarium for the work done by them.

It is the contention of the defendants that the defendant No.2 was appointed as a sacristan and, therefore, he was allowed to make use of the said room. It is further the contention of the defendants that the defendants continued to be in the lawful possession of the said room. The defendants had requested the plaintiffs to vacate the said room repeatedly, but the plaintiffs did not. It is further the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff No. 2 abandoned the service and had joined an establishment at Vasco-da-Gama. The defendants submit that the plaintiff No.2 was given an ample opportunity to remove his belongings and to hand over the possession, but the plaintiff No. 2 did not accede and ultimately, therefore, on 15-4-2000, the defendants removed the belongings in presence of the parishioners and then, an inventory was prepared. The main contention of the defendants is that they were always in lawful possession and had never parted with the possession as such.

4. The learned Judge of the trial Court framed issues and found that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that they were not dispossessed. Holding so, she dismissed the suit.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants. None appears for the respondents. The only question that is required to be decided in this revision, is whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed unlawfully within 6 months of institution of the suit.

6. The undisputed fact is that the plaintiffs were put in possession of said room and particularly the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim that since they were serving with the defendants, they were put in possession. The pleadings of the defendants particularly in para. 3 of the written statement, show that the plaintiffs were allowed to use the room by the defendants. It is neither parties' case that the plaintiffs are tenants or the trespassers. The user of the plaintiffs can, therefore, be said to be permissive. The defendants'