A licensee does not automatically become a trespasser upon license revocation; they retain rights to a reasonable time for vacating.

1.First defendant in a suit for rendition of accounts of a dissolved firm and mandatory injunction to put the plaintiff in possession of A and B Schedule properties and also prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering in the premises, is the appellant.

2. Plaint A schedule property having an extent of 8 cents and the building thereon belongs to the plaintiff's mother inlaw. On 20th May 1976 the mother inlaw executed a lease in favour of the plaintiff, stipulating a rent of Rs. 125 per mensem. On 21st May 1976 the plaintiff and defendants entered into a partnership agreement as per Ext. A - 1 to start a business in the schedule premises. Ext. A - 1. partnership deed provides that the lease in favour of the plaintiff will continue as such, that the defendants shall pay the plaintiff Rs. 1,500 per mensem, that the term of the partnership is for three years, that the defendants have to contribute Rs. 25,000 in the business, that the business shall be in copra, that the profits of the business shall be shared between the plaintiff and defendants at the ratio 40:30:30, that in case of loss in the business, the plaintiff is to get Rs. 5,000 in a year, that the business shall be managed by the defendants, that the B schedule movables supplied by the plaintiff shall be returned on the dissolution of the partnership, and that after the dissolution, the lease in favour of the plaintiff shall continue.

3. On the allegation that amounts are due to the plaintiff under the terms of Ext. A - 1 the partnership agreement, and that the defendants even after the dissolution and termination of the partnership have not vacated the
premises, the suit was laid. It is also alleged that the defendants after discontinuing the copra business have started rubber business against the terms of the partnership agreement and so a suit O.S. No. 44/79 was instituted by the plaintiff for injunction, etc.

4. It is contended that the lease actually was not in favour of the plaintiff, but in favour of the firm, that the lease deed produced by the plaintiff is a concocted document, that in 1976 August the plaintiff retired from the partnership, that the defendants continued as partners and in 1982, the 2nd defendant retired and the partnership reconstituted by the first defendant with his wife as the other partner.

5. Elaborate evidence was taken and considering the evidence, the Trial Court held that Ext. A - 1 is a genuine and valid lease in favour of the firm and also that the plaintiff did not retire from the partnership as contended, out she continued as a partner till the expiry of the term provided in Ext. A - 1. It was also held that no proper accounts were maintained by the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to get the accounts rendered and accordingly a preliminary decree was passed. Mandatory as well as prohibitory injunctions were also granted.

6. The first defendant went in appeal and the first appellate court with some modifications confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and also confirmed the preliminary decree. The first appellate court took note of the retirement of the second defendant and induction of the first defendant's wife as a partner and hence the modifications in the decree.

7. The Trial Court decree was modified to the effect that the first respondent (plaintiff) and appellant (1st defendant) are entitled to the profits at the ratio 40:60 and first respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 1,500 per mensem from the date of execution of Ext. A - 1 till the date of dissolution of the partnership firm subject to the provi