JUDGMENT K.S Verma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-3-1984 passed by II Additional District Judge, Hardoi. By means of this decree the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in dispute was decreed and arrears of rent with effect from 5-12-1963 to 4-12-1966 and pendente lite and future damages at the said rate till the date on which the possession is obtained by the plaintiffs was also decreed. Aggrieved by the decree the defendant has filed this appeal. 2. The history of this case is very chequered and the case was remanded several times by this Court to the trial Court. Ultimately, the suit was tried by the II Additional District Judge Hardoi. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the defendant was the tenant of Raja of Katiyari. Under a sale deed dated 22-11-1955 the plaintiffs purchased the shop in question along with other shops and in this way, the defendant became his tenant. The plaintiff case is that in spite of a notice of demand for arrears of rent and for ejectment the arrears of rent were not paid and by the said notice the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated and, therefore, the suit for ejectment has been filed. 3. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant that he had made constructions over the shop in question by investing more than 3000/- (Three thousand rupees) in pursuance of an agreement to sell entered into between Smt. Kalawati, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It was also contended by the defendant that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and the defendant and the defendant had made constructions in the capacity of an owner to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff are not entitled to a decree for ejectment against him. 4. For the proper elucidation of the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to the two statements made by the plaintiff in his statement under Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. For the proper elucidation of the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to the two statements made by the plaintiff in his statement under Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 10-4-1967 the plaintiff made the statement that the shop in suit was purchased by the plaintiffs from Raja Udai Pratap Singh of Katiyari and the defendant was the tenant from before the sale deed in respect of another portion, the present portion of the shop was exchanged thereafter. It was also stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the present portion's rent was agreed to be Rs. 6.50 and the said agreement took place between plaintiff's father Shiv Ram and the defendant. On 9-10-1967 another statement was made by the plaintiffs that the contract of tenancy between plaintiffs and defendant took place orally on 2-12-1955 between plaintiff's father Shiv Ram and the defendant. It was also stated that the plaintiffs do not base their claim on any other contract. 5. In this connection it would be appropriate to refer to a decision rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 353 of 1966 between Smt. Kalawati, mother of the plaintiffs and Chhotey Lal. A perusal of the record of the said appeal would indicate that Chhotey Lal filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale between Smt. Kalawati and Chhotey Lal. The case put forward by Chhotey Lal was that there was an agreement to sell entered into between him and Smt. Kalawati and in pursuance of the said agreement he had taken possession of that property and that a decree for specific performance of contract be passed with direction that Smt. Kalawati should execute a sale-deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of Chhotey Lal. It is not in dispute that this controversy ended by decision rendered in Second Appeal No. 353 of 1966 whereby the suit filed by Chhotey Lal was dismissed and plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the property in dispute. 6. After narrating the above facts, I proceed to determine the controversy between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the shop in suit was let out to the defendant on rent by the plaintiff's father on their behalf ? 2. 6. After narrating the above facts, I proceed to determine the controversy between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the shop in suit was let out to the defendant on rent by the plaintiff's father on their behalf ? 2. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C.? 3. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties on the date of the notice ? 4. To what relief and amount are the plaintiffs entitled ? 5. Whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiffs of the shop in suit as alleged in para 1 (a) 1 (b) of the plaint ? 6. Whether the defendant is liable for ejectment on the ground of denial of title of the plaintiffs as alleged in para 1 (b) of the plaint ? 7. Whether the defendant constructed the shop in suit and spent Rs. 3,000/- over it in the knowledge of plaintiff, Phool Chand and plaintiff's son ? If so, its effect ? 8. Whether the decision in Suit No. 11 of 1961 of the Court of Munsif West operates as res judicata as alleged in para 7 of the W.S. ? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Section 109 of the T.P. Act ? 10. Whether the defendant is licensee with grant in the disputed shop as alleged in para 10 of the additional W.S. ? 11. To what relief, the rate of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation the plaintiffs are entitled ? The trial Court proceeded to record its findings on issues 1, 3, 5 and 9. Plaintiff Satish Chand examined himself as P.W. 1. He stated that shop was let out by his father and his statement was corroborated by his father, P.W. 2. Shriram, father of Phool Chand proved the rent receipts issued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant Chhotey Lal examined himself. In his statement Chhotey Lal stated that he had made constructions on the land in dispute after investing Rs. 3,000/-. He also stated that Raja of Katiyari had sold two shops and a stair-case in November, 1955 in favour of the plaintiffs. Chhotey Lal further states that the shop sold to the plaintiffs includes the shop in question also. In his statement Chhotey Lal stated that he had made constructions on the land in dispute after investing Rs. 3,000/-. He also stated that Raja of Katiyari had sold two shops and a stair-case in November, 1955 in favour of the plaintiffs. Chhotey Lal further states that the shop sold to the plaintiffs includes the shop in question also. It was stated by Chhotey Lal that the sale by Raja of Katiyari in favour of Smt. Kalawati and the plaintiffs were Benamidars. The defendant has also stated that he was the tenant of Raja of Katiyari in respect of both portions and Chhotey Lal further stated that the place where there was stair-case was converted into a shop. This is the entire evidence in respect of contract of tenancy. From a perusal of the statement of D.W.1 Chhotey Lal, it is apparent that he admitted that he was the tenant of Raja of Katiyari also in respect of that portion which is in dispute in the present case After having analysed the evidence led by both the parties, it appears that although' the plaintiffs set up the plea that the contract of tenancy was entered into between the plaintiffs father and the defendant, the defendant has clearly stated that he was tenant of the portion in dispute on behalf of Raja of Katiyari. The effect to this admission would be that on the sale of the shop in question the (defendant would become the tenant of plaintiffs also. On behalf of Chhotey Lal, defendant appellant it was strenuously contended by Mr. H.N. Tilhari that since the plaintiffs in their statement under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. confined their case to entering into a contract between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, the plaintiffs should not be permitted to rely upon the admission of the defendant that the shop in dispute was included in his tenancy when the same was sold to the plaintiffs by Raja of Katiyari. In my opinion, there appears no merit in the contention of Mr. Tilhari. I come to this finding on two grounds. In the first instant the admission of the defendant contained in his statement as D.W.1, in this case has not been explained. He clearly admitted that from before the sale deed he was tenant to Raja of Katiyari. The second ground on which the argument of Mr. Tilhari. I come to this finding on two grounds. In the first instant the admission of the defendant contained in his statement as D.W.1, in this case has not been explained. He clearly admitted that from before the sale deed he was tenant to Raja of Katiyari. The second ground on which the argument of Mr. Tilhari has to be repelled is the finding of this Court in second Appeal No. 353 of 1966. It has been found by this Court in the said appeal that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute and they were not Benamidars and that the sale-deed executed on their behalf was a Benami transaction. The defect of the finding recorded by this Court is that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute and Smt. Kalawati could not enter into a contract for the sale of the property. On that ground the suit of Chhotey Lal was dismissed and as a consequence of that the plaintiffs were held to be the owner of the property in dispute. If the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute on the basis of a sale-deed then the defendant on his own saying would be tenant of the plaintiffs as stated earlier that he was tenant of Raja Katiyari in respect of the shop in dispute. 7. Mr. H.N. Tilhari criticised the evidence led by the plaintiff in great detail. He laid emphasis on the fact that if the defendant was the tenant of Raja of Katiyari from before the sale-deed what was the necessity for the plaintiffs, to have entered into a contract of tenancy with the defendant. He also emphasised that the plaintiff in his statement under Order X, Rule 2 C.P.C. dated 9-10-1967 had clearly given up their claim of any other contract or allotment. On this aspect of the matter, I have heard Mr. H.S. Sahai in great detail. In my opinion, there appears no inconsistency in the stand taken by the plaintiff Even if there was a contract of tenancy between Raja of Katiyari and the defendant in respect of the shop in dispute prior to the execution of the sale-deed, there was no bar for the plaintiffs to enter into a fresh contract to tenancy so as to stabilise their position as landlord of the shop in dispute with Chhotey Lal as the tenant. The evidence of P.W. 3 Phool Chand who is brother of Shriram and who used to look after the realisation of rent from shops has clearly stated that Chhotey Lal was the tenant of the shop in dispute and he has also proved the rent receipts in respect of the shop in dispute. The rent receipts are paper Nos. 46-Ga/2 and 47-Ga/2. The said receipts clearly mention that the plaintiffs are the owners and Chhotey Lal is the tenant. In respect of these receipts Chhotey Lal stated that the said receipts were in respect of payment of interest of some loan transaction. It is not possible to accept the version of the defendant in this respect as the rent receipts clearly indicate that Chhotey Lal is diminished as the tenant of the shop in question. The said receipts have also been proved by Phool Chand. The result of analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record establishes that in the first instance the defendant was the tenant of the shop in question when the property in dispute was sold by Raja of Katiyari to the plaintiffs. That being the position the plaintiffs would step into shoes of Raja of Katiyari and the defendant would be tenant of the plaintiffs. This would have been sufficient to dispose of the question of tenancy but there appears to be reliable evidence also that subsequent to sale there was some arrangement whereby the relationship of landlord and tenant was created between plaintiffs and defendant. As a result of this evidence it is established beyond doubt that defendant is the tenant of the plaintiffs, and relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. 8. Mr. H.N. Tilhari strenuously contended that the statement made by D.W. 1 that he was in possession of the shop in dispute as owner and had made constructions after investing a good deal of money. He contended that there is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiffs at any time prevented the defendant from making any construction, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant the defendant became licensee of the plaintiffs and suit for ejectment is not maintainable unless the licence is revoked in the manner provided for by law. He contended that there is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiffs at any time prevented the defendant from making any construction, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant the defendant became licensee of the plaintiffs and suit for ejectment is not maintainable unless the licence is revoked in the manner provided for by law. In this respect he relied upon the evidence of the defendant that he asked the plaintiffs to make construction on the shop in dispute but the plaintiffs replied that if the constructions were made by them the rent of the accommodation would be enhanced. The defendant further states that since the plaintiffs did not not make any construction he made construction in the capacity of an owner under an agreement to sell entered into between him and Smt. Kalawati in respect of the property in dispute. I have examined the argument of Mr. Tilhari but I am unable to agree with his contention that from the facts set out by the defendant in his statement an inference can be drawn that the defendant became licensee of the plaintiffs. Mr. Tilhari relied upon a number of decisions in support of his contention that a person who acting upon a licence, has made construction thereon, cannot be evicted as the licensee has made permanent constructions to the knowledge of the licensor. I consider it unnecessary to those decisions in detail as in my opinion no case for licence is made out in favour of the defendant. 9. It was further contended by Mr. Tilhari that the Court below has not taken into consideration the effect of defendant's possession over the property in dispute. He has contended that for a number of years the defendant has been in possession asserting his right as an owner and, there-fore, he has acquired rights by adverse possession. This argument also has no merit as there is nothing on record to indicate that the defendant set up the title hostile to the plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that the defendant was in possession as a tenant, first of Raja of Katiyari and afterwards as tenant of the plaintiffs 10. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that the defendant was in possession as a tenant, first of Raja of Katiyari and afterwards as tenant of the plaintiffs 10. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. H.S. Sahai has contended that even if contract of tenancy is not established the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for ejectment on the ground that they have been held to be the owner of the property in dispute by virtue of decision in Second Appeal No. 353 of 1966. In this respect reliance was placed on Ram Shanker v. Bidhey Khan and another, AIR 1976 Allahabad 155. By reference to the said decision it was argued by Mr. H.S. Sahai that even if the contract of tenancy set up by the plaintiffs fails, it is clear that the defendant was in possession on behalf of Raja of Katiyari to start with and then later on, on behalf of the plaintiffs. Under a notice for ejectment the defendant has been required to vacate the property in question. According to the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs it is sufficient for the Court to decree the suit for ejectment filed to the plaintiffs. Reference was also made to Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 S.C. 735 . This decision has been discussed in detail in Ram Shanker v. Bidhey Khan and another, ( supra ) Mr. Sahai also referred State of Madhya Pradesh v. Smt. Ganga Devi and others, 1980 A.I.R and he submitted that even if constructions have been made on the plot in dispute it would be open to the defendant to remove the constructions when decree for ejectment was passed. The trial Court while recording his findings on issue No. 7 has held that Chhotey Lal has failed to prove that he made any constructions on the shop in dispute after spending Rs. 3,000/-. After having examined the evidence of defendant I, and that the finding recorded by the Court below on issue No.7 is correct and is accordingly upheld. It is unnecessary to go into this question any further as I have already held that the contract of tenancy exists between plaintiffs and defendant. 11. The Court below has recorded a detailed finding that the defendant inspite of notice has not paid the arrears of rent and is, therefore, liable to ejectment. It is unnecessary to go into this question any further as I have already held that the contract of tenancy exists between plaintiffs and defendant. 11. The Court below has recorded a detailed finding that the defendant inspite of notice has not paid the arrears of rent and is, therefore, liable to ejectment. I agree with the finding recorded by the trial Court that the defendant has defaulted in payment of arrears of rent inspite of notice of demand and, therefore, the decree for ejectment has rightly been passed by the trial Court. 12. For the reason stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.