( 1 ) THERE is a house property bearing no. 453 on plot no. 12 at Rajkot and the property is known as Manoramya. The plaintiffs are the brothers and the defendant wanted to sell the above property. The plaintiffs case is that on 10-5-1968 an agreement was entered into between the parties by which the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 1 10 0 That document is at Exh. 120. On that date two months time was fixed for executing the sale-deed. However the defendant wanted a sum of Rs. 35 0 which the defendant wanted to pay to the Co-operative Bank as the title-deeds were lying with the bank and the defendant had borrowed money. The plaintiffs further case is that the defendant approached for the above sum and they were not willing to part with the sum of Rs. 35 0 as two months time was fixed initially for executing the document. The defendant thereupon agreed to execute the sale-deed at the earliest and therefore the sum of Rs. 35 0 was paid on 16-5-1968. Ultimately this sale deed was executed on 18-5-1968 and it was presented for registration. However the document could not be registered on that day as the Sub-Registrar insisted for production of income-tax clearance certificate. The defendant applied for the same and ultimately got the same on 15- 1968. The document came to be registered on 17-7-1969. That document is at Exh. 122. On the day on which the sale-deed was executed another agreement was entered into between the parties and that document is exhibit 123. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant wanted time for the purpose of banding over possession of the suit property and therefore exhibit 123 was entered into and according to the plaintiffs case it is a document of licence. The plaintiffs in the beginning hesitated for giving time and ultimately the defendant agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 0 for due performance of the contract. According to the plaintiffs the defendant agreed to hand over the possession of the suit property on 10-2-1969. The defendant did not hand over possession on 10-2-1969 as per document Exh. 123 and on 14-2-1969 the plaintiffs sent a telegram Exh. 89. A notice was also addressed by the plaintiffs to the defendant which is produced at exhibit 90. The defendant gave reply on 1-3-1969 by sending a telegram which is at Exh. 92. The defendant also sent a reply on the next day i. e. On 2-3-1969 and that reply is at Exh. 93. There after the plaintiffs gave a counter-reply on 10-3-1969 which is at Exh. 94. Thereafter on 28-3-1969 the plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 1969 in the court of Civil. Judge (S. D.) at Rajkot. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the suit properly and they prayed for mandatory injunction asking the defendant to remove himself and his belongings and his family members and dependents and his agents and servants from the suit premises. A permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed for. The plaintiffs also prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 0 per month from 10 till the possession of the suit premises was banded over. The mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1 0 were calculated from 10-2-69 till 28 the date on which the suit was filed and a sum of Rs. 1632. 00 was claimed. The plaintiffs also prayed for the damages and the damages were calculated at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month from 1-3-1975. An amount of Rs. 26 100 was claimed as damages and they were calculated at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month as paid to Mrs. Vidyagauri N. Mehta. The amount was sub-divided and Rs. 3600. 00 were calculated till 31 and Rs. 22500. 00 were calculated from 1-6-1971 till 28-2-1975 and from 1-3-1975 a sum of Rs. 500. 00 per month was claimed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) THE next question which is required to be considered is whether the defendant is tenant of the suit property from 18-5-1968. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is a licensee. This is a question of considerab