the  other point which is made by the defendant is this, he says that the plaintiffs have been guilty of delaying tactics er during the course of this litigation, the result of which has been that er he has not been able to realize his interest in the partnership premises, also he has not been able to acquire a partnership premises and he he, doctor  mentioned to me that to the  actual conveyance of the partnership premises he's, he tells me was only produced i think thirty  and er that er it was only then that he realized there might be a chance that he could acquire the premises for himself, but he says that er because of the general, i think the case is, because of the general conduct of the plaintiffs in delaying the trial of the action one way or another, er the practical effect has been that the plaintiffs have had the benefit of use and occupation of the premises at which he erm, a main view, has a lot of that interest and that they are getting benefit of the kind from that occupation and he is not getting any money in res in respect of that, at least nothing like any market rent because it maybe that there is a fairly small er payment being made, but i'm not too entirely clear whether that is the case or not, but the  stock bond is suggesting that the plaintiffs have been obtaining benefit of the use of the premises at his expense and in those circumstances it is unfair er in, in, or otherwise not appropriate that the plaintiffs should be entitled to obtain interest on their bill of costs, in respect essentially of the period of delay, and when i say period of delay included that the period during which the  forward of mr justice  remained erm unprotected.