JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a defendants 'second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for ejectment of the appellants from the premises in dispute and for Rs. 900/- by way of damages for use and occupation of the said premises. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that he was appointed as a receiver of the property of Padrauna Raj on 14th November 1964. The appellants were licences in a portion of the Lah Kothi belonging to Padrauna Raj. The license was revoked on 16.8.1965 Thereafter possession was not delivered by the defendants hence the suit. The defence was that the house was not part of Lah Kothi. The case of the defendants was that the premises in question were gifted to their grand father by the owners of the Padrauna Raj as he happened to be their servant and as such the case of license was denied. 2. The trial court by judgment dated 19th September 1970 decreed the suit and also decreed damages for the period 1.7.1962 to 31.7.1965. Aggrieved by the said judgment an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on 10th November 1971 with the modification that the amount of damages shall stand reduced to Rs. 101.66 only. Against the judgment dated 10th November, 1971 the present second appeal has been filed in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the appellants are licensees is a finding vitiated in law and as such the suit could not be decreed. 4. The case of the appellants that the property had been gifted to their grand father was not established by them and the lower appellate court recorded a categorical finding that the suit house was not gifted to the ancestors of the appellants. The appellants have also not established any other relationship between the Padrauna Raj and themselves. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding that in fact the appellants were licensees. I do not find any error of law in this finding recorded by the lower appellate court. Once the appellants are licensees and their license having been revoked the decree was rightly passed by the courts below. 5. In the result there is no force in this appeal. I do not find any error of law in this finding recorded by the lower appellate court. Once the appellants are licensees and their license having been revoked the decree was rightly passed by the courts below. 5. In the result there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.