JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This is a defendants appeal. It arises out of suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit in its entirety. However, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit with respect to the ejectment of the appellant, but decreed the same so far as the arrears of rent are concerned. 2. Sarvasri Azam Ali and Saddiq Ali instituted a suit in the court of the Munsif, Moradabad, in which the Municipal Board, Amroha and Smt. Kishwar Jehan Begum were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the defendants were the tenants of a certain accommodation of which the plaintiffs were the landlords. Despite service of notice of ejectment, the defendant failed to vacate the accommodation. It was also pleaded that there are certain arrears of rent. Damages too were claimed. The rent and damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. 3. The defendants contested the suit. The appellant Smt. Kishwar Jehan Begum, pleaded that she alone was the tenant of the accommodation and the Municipal Board. Amroha had nothing to do with it. She denied her liability to pay any rent or damages. 4. The trial court took the view that the Municipal Board had vacated the accommodation long back and no privity of contract subsisted between the plaintiffs and the appellant, (the defendant no. 2). It held that the question of arrears of rent, therefore, did not arise. The remedy, if any, of the plaintiffs was to claim mesne profits in separate proceedings. It, therefore, dismissed the suit in its entirety. 5. The Plaintiffs preferred an appeal. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal Azam All, the plaintiff no. 1, died and in his place his heirs and legal representatives were substituted. The appellate court recorded the finding trial the appellant Smt. Kishwar Jehan Begum was tenant of the accommodation in dispute since the year 1952 and a valid contract of tenancy came into existence between her and the then landlords. It also recorded the finding that the initial rent of the accommodation in dispute was Rs. 12/- per month, it has also recorded the finding that till June, 1963 the Municipal Board, Amroha, opened the maternity home in the accommodation in dispute and the appellant continued to reside therein thereafter. 6. It also recorded the finding that the initial rent of the accommodation in dispute was Rs. 12/- per month, it has also recorded the finding that till June, 1963 the Municipal Board, Amroha, opened the maternity home in the accommodation in dispute and the appellant continued to reside therein thereafter. 6. It may be noted that it was the admitted case of the parties that the appellant was a midwife, an employee of the Municipal Board. The appellate court has recorded a finding that the maternity home came into existence in the accommodation in dispute in June 1963 and the Board continued to occupy the accommodation in dispute till 30th June, 1967 and thereafter the appellant alone began to reside in the same. The lower appellate court recorded a finding that the Municipal Board paid rent to the plaintiffs-respondents at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month Accordingly, a decree for arrears of rent was passed at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. 7. In this court the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree passed by the lower appellate court with regard to the arrears of rent alone. The contention of the learned counsel is that the rate of rent of the accommodation continued to be Rs. 12/- per month. No agreement either express or implied, enhancing the rate of rent from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 30/- per month ever came into existence between the appellant and the landlord-respondents. The Municipal Board was a mere licensee and, therefore, any contract entered into by it with the landlords vis-a-vis the monthly rent of the accommodation in dispute was not binding upon the appellant. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant I have perused the deposition of Smt. Kishwar Jehand Begum. She has deposed that rent was being paid in her knowledge by the Municipal Boar to the plaintiffs-respondents at the rate to Rs. 30/- per month. She has also deposed that the Municipal Board had agreed to pay this rent to the landlords. She has not deposed that this enhancement of rent took place without her consent. She has also not deposed that she had at any stage objected the rent being enhanced. 30/- per month. She has also deposed that the Municipal Board had agreed to pay this rent to the landlords. She has not deposed that this enhancement of rent took place without her consent. She has also not deposed that she had at any stage objected the rent being enhanced. The fact that during the period between June 1963 and 30th June, 1967 the appellate did not pay rent to the landlords and the fact that the rent was being paid by the Municipal Board on her behalf and within her knowledge to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month, in my opinion, were enough to enable the lower appellate to draw an inference of fact that the appellant had agreed to enhance the rate of rent from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 30/- per month. It is now well settled that the inference drawn from proved facts is an inference of fact. Therefore, the lower appellate court has recorded a finding of fact that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 30/- per month. Such a finding is binding upon me in second appeal. 9. This appeal lacks merits and is dismissed with costs.