1. If the decision of this court in Kalliani v. Kalliyani 1969 KLT. 362 it correct, I think the decrees of the courts below call for interference. That is because the main controversy is whether the suit for recovery of possession I am assuming so and I will, in due course, point out that I treat this as a suit for recovery of possession is barred by limitation under Art.142 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (this is the Act applicable to this case). The plaintiffs contend that they were in possession of the suit property and the defendant was in occupation of a building therein under a rental arrangement which building was destroyed and therefore the tenancy with regard to the building has terminated. They seek recovery of possession of the property apparently on the basis that defendant trespassed therein. Defendant sets up a tenancy with regard to the suit property in favour of his father that having commenced, according to him, about 40 years earlier. On the evidence in the case the plea of tenancy set up by the, defendant has been found to be not proved. Defendant is found to be a person who was originally allowed to occupy the building in the property as a tenant