( 1 ) THIS suit instituted on April 20, 1962 by Radheshyam Seal and Sabitri Seal as Trustees (both since deceased), inter alia, for eviction of the defendant from premises No. 4 Krishna Behari Sen Street, Calcutta, arises out of unfortunate disputes between parents and son.

( 2 ) IN the plaint it is, inter alia, contended that Radheshyam Seal, the owner of the suit premises, by a deed dated September 1, 1937 settled certain properties, including the suit property upon trust and appointed himself and his wife Sabitri Seal, the Trustees thereof. It is contended that since execution of the said deed of trust the suit premises vested in the plaintiffs as Trustees and at all material times they acted as such. The said Trustees Radheshyam Seal and Sabitri Seal at the request of the defendant in or about January, 1957 allowed him to live in the rear portion of the suit premises, more particularly described in paragraph 4 thereof, and since the said time the defendant is residing therein with leave and license of the trustees. By Solicitor's letter dated December 5, 1961 the plaintiffs cancelled and revoked the leave and licence granted to the defendant and called upon him to quit and vacate the said back portion and make over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff, which the defendant failed and neglected to do. The plaintiffs claim Rs. 348/- by way of damages at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day for use and occupation of the said portion from January 5, 1962 to April 30, 1962 and also claim possession of the suit premises.

( 3 ) RADHESHYAM Seal the original plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit on June 25, 1962 leaving Smt. Seal, his wife as the sole surviving trustee, and the plaint was accordingly amended by order of September 7, 1962. On or about February 26, 1975 the original plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Sabitri Seal died, and by an order dated September 8, 1976 the present plaintiffs, the two other sons of the original plaintiffs were appointed new Trustees. It is contended that upon the death of Sabitri Seal and upon appointment of the plaintiffs as new Trustees they become entitled to proceed with the suit, and that by deeds dated December 28, 1956 and December 10, 1962 the entire trust estate devolved on the present plaintiffs as trustees.

( 4 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant whilst admitting Radheshyam Seal to be the owner of suit the premises, and whilst accepting that a Trust had been created by him as stated in the plaint, it is contended that since January 1957, the defendant had been in exclusive possession of the first floor of the suit premises as a tenant and it is denied that he had been residing therein with the leave and licence of the plaintiffs. It is further urged that as a beneficiary under the Trust Deed of September 9, 1937 the defendant has a valuable and substantial interest in the trust property including the suit premises. It is contended that at the end of 1956 sharp disputes between the defendant on the one hand and his parents and/or his two elder brothers (the present plaintiffs) on the other, were settled by an agreement entered upon in January 1957, whereunder the defendant agreed to pay one third of Corporation Taxes and Electric Bills of the entire premises and in consideration thereof the original plaintiffs leased out the first floor of the premises to the defendant.

( 5 ) WHILE admitting receipt of the plaintiff's Solicitors letter dated December 5, 1961 it is denied that the defendant is staying at the suit premises under any alleged leave and licence. It is contended that the purported revocation of the alleged license was illegal, invalid, inoperative and not binding on the defendant.

( 6 ) IN additional written statement filed by the defendant on January 30, 1979 it was inter alia contended that the original plaintiffs held the trust properties not as owners but as trustees for the benefit of the beneficiaries, their three sons, and