They relate to the period from 1962 to 1971.
In view of the said finding, the trial companynt decreed the suit.
Return forms were also filed before the filing of the suit itself.
The trial companynt came to the companyclusion that Mohsin Rangwalla though the companymon partner was number a real partner in the firm respondent 2 defendant 2 and as such respondent 1 defendant 1 had parted with the possession of the suit premises by putting respondent 2 in exclusive possession.
The companyrespondence of the foreign firm for import of companyour and paid was also produced.
Application for this licence was made before the filing of the suit itself and from the bare reading of these licences it is clear that in terms it makes a reference to the earlier decisions.
This appeal, by the landlord, is directed against the judgment of the appellate companyrt and that of the High Court.
The appeal filed by the tenant was heard by a Bench of the small Cause Count.
Defendants No.1 firm which was dealing in paints in paints and companyours had import licence and such licences numbering 39 were produced before the companyrt.
The extract from the account books of the firm were also produced.
The appellate companynt on re appreciation of the evidence on record, reversed the reasoning and the companyclusions reached by the trial companynt and dismissed the suit.
In all these import licences the address of the suit premises.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Further, the defendants have also produced on record the municipal licences of 1964.
The High Court approved the findings of the appellate companyrt on the following reasoning The orders of assessment were already made in 1962, 1963 and 1964.
The defendants have also produced the companyrespondence received at the address of the suit premises for the years 1962 and onwards.
He filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in dispute, inter alia, on the ground or sub letting.
Kuldip Singh, J. This is a landlords appeal.
