LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing in both the cases submitted that both the appeals involves some question of law, therefore, they may be heard in common and a common Judgment may be delivered. ( 2 ) THE above R. S. A. No. 567/79, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9-4-79 made in RA. No. 97/78 on the file of the civil Judge, Tiptur, confirming the Judgment and- Decree dated 31-8-77, made in o. S. No. 74/75, on the file of the Munsiff and j. M. F. C, Chikkanayakanahalli. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that: plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property for having purchased the same its owners named Shamanna and his son, on 30-10-74. The defendant is a tenant under the original owners in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/ -. The tenancy month commences on 17th of each month. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by means of a notice which was served on 6-3-75 asking the defendant to quit the suit premises on or before 17-4-75. The plaintiff has also asked the defendant to attorn the tenancy in favour of plaintiff. The defendant has not paid rents from 30-10-74 to 17-4-75 amounting to Rs. 165/ -. Further the plaintiff requires the house and site for her own use and occupation. The plaintiff has submitted that she is residing in a rented house. Therefore, she prays that possession of the plaint schedule house may be given to her after vacating the same. The defendant in interalia contended that the allegations made against him are not true. But in the first para of his written statement he has said in so many words that he has leased the said house from one Shamanna for Rs. 30/- per month from 17-3-1963. Later with his consent the defendant had put up a construction by spending about Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of running hotel called "krishna Lunch home. " Neither Shamanna nor the plaintiff have got any right to question the said construction. Learned Munsiff, after examining the documents produced by both the parties decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the defendant filed an appeal in RA. 97/78 in the court of the Civil Judge, at Tiptur. 15,000/- for the purpose of running hotel called "krishna Lunch home. " Neither Shamanna nor the plaintiff have got any right to question the said construction. Learned Munsiff, after examining the documents produced by both the parties decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the defendant filed an appeal in RA. 97/78 in the court of the Civil Judge, at Tiptur. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on 9-4-1979, and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Munsiff. , Aggrieved by the same the Defendant filed R. S. A. in this Court. Similar are the facts of the connected appeal. ( 4 ) THE facts in brief in the other Appeal are as under: This is also a suit wherein the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the property in question. Similar facts were contended in the written statement filed by the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant being aggrieved preferred R. A. 98/78 in the Court of the Civil Judge, at Tiptur. The learned Civil Judge, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree the defendant preferred R. SA. No. 571 of 1979 in this court. At the time of admission of both the appeals this Court raised the common substantial question of law as under:"whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the relationship between the parties to the suit is one of lessor and lessee or licensor or licensee?" ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the approach of both the Courts below is wrong. He also submitted it is also perverse and capricious. Wherefore, this Court can interfere with the concurrent findings given by both the Courts. The learned Counsel Mr. Gundappa, invited my attention to para one of the written statement filed by the defendant, wherein he has contended as under:"one Shamanna had leased the suit premises and later with his consent the defendant put up a construction by spending about Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of running a hotel called "krishna Lunch Home" in the said premises and therefore a hotel building that was constructed by the consent of the party, the structure is of permanent nature. "therefore, he invited my attention to Section 60 of the Easement Act. 15,000/- for the purpose of running a hotel called "krishna Lunch Home" in the said premises and therefore a hotel building that was constructed by the consent of the party, the structure is of permanent nature. "therefore, he invited my attention to Section 60 of the Easement Act. , which thus :"60. A licence may be revoked by the grantor, unless :- (a) it is coupled with a transfer of property and such transfer is in force; (b) The licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution". ( 6 ) THIS would have been done by the licensor if the licensee has committed any breach in the license premises. This construction which is of a permanent nature was constructed by the defendant with the consent of the owner of the land. This is not done but this can be inferred to say that he is a licensee and not a tenant. The learned Counsel mr. Gundappa, also submitted that the 1st appellate Judge, who is a fact finding authority has treated the matter very lightly and he has not done his - job properly, in other words he has concurred with the findings of the Court below i. e. , the trial - Court, without proper discussion and assigning reasons and he has adopted short cut methods. Therefore he relied upon para 14 of the 1st Appellate Court's Judgment which reads as under:"the learned Advocate cited certain authorities which are considered by the trial Court in its Judgment, to point out the distinction between lease and licence. In view of that has been stated above, I do not see any reason to refer to those authorities. In this case, no question has arisen as regards the distinction between the licence and lease. " ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the findings of 1st Appellate court are not the finding that is required by law. Therefore, he has submitted that interference of this Court is quite essential in the interest of justice and equity. He further prays that the Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court may be set aside and remitted to the same Court to consider once again by reassessing the evidence and question of law,. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. He further prays that the Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court may be set aside and remitted to the same Court to consider once again by reassessing the evidence and question of law,. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Lingappa, submits that he also relies upon some para of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Judge. He further pointed out that it is not the case of the defendant that the relationship between the defendant and the owner of the suit premises was that of a licensor and licensee. ( 8 ) IN the absence of the defendant now to contend that he is only a licensee in respect of the suit premises and that licence is required - under Section 60 of the Easement act. Learned Counsel Sri Lingappa, submits that the learned Civil Judge, thought it justly not necessary to discuss the evidence and the aspect of the distinction between the two. It is quite clear from the written statement that the defendant never contended that he was a licensee. What ever is not pleaded in the written statement, cannot be proved by any amount of evidence, it is not adrift that he required to be given it is not pleaded. Therefore, he submits that the learned Civil judge, is right in not discussing elaborately the controversy now being contended by learned Counsel for the appellant. However, he invited my attention to the reply notice. The reply notice given by the defendant to the notice dated 17-1-1975 in which he has stated in so many words that the defendant admits that he is a tenant in the house belonging to the respondents. In this behalf for better appreciation I reproduce below the very sentence from the notice: But he denies the date of the commencement of the tenancy and he denies other allegations. Therefore, it is quite clear that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff, but it is also on record that he has constructed 'krishna Lunch Home' a hotel premises - by spending his money which is said to be rs. 15,000/- by the consent of the plaintiff. In para two of the written statement the defendant says:"he is a tenant under the original owners in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/- and paying the same to Sri Shamanna. 15,000/- by the consent of the plaintiff. In para two of the written statement the defendant says:"he is a tenant under the original owners in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/- and paying the same to Sri Shamanna. And where he has constructed 'krishna Lunch Home' and a residential house. "therefore, it is quite clear that he is a tenant and not the Lessee as contended by him. However, except on this point I need not discuss regarding the other points which have been concurred by both the Courts below. ( 9 ) THE legal quit notice has given to the tenant and the tenant replied to it. Therefore, all the recourses have been adopted by the plaintiff. I think there is some force in the concessions advanced by Sri Lingappa, learned Counsel for the respondent. In the circumstances and reasons stated above both the Judgments and Decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be sustained. Besides the learned Counsel Sri Gundappa, submits that the defendant is residing with his entire family and also running a hotel which is the only source of income to maintain his family and if the defendant is evicted he will be put irreparable loss and injury. Therefore he prays that atleast five years time may be granted to the defendant to vacate both the residential premises and the hotel. As against this Sri Lingappa, submits that the landlady is a poor lady who is in her last days and she is living in a rented house and greater - hardship will be caused to the old lady than to the defendant in the above case. In another case he submits that unfortunately the appeals were admitted when the owner was alive, but he did not see the fortunate days of entering into his own house but his legal representatives are there and they are passing very hard days, therefore, he prays that a shortest possible time may be given to the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in the other appeal. Taking into consideration both the submissions, I think that some reasonable time should be given to the defendant to vacate the premises. It is brought to my notice that there are residential houses in both the premises and the hotel. In the ends of justice i pass the following Order. Taking into consideration both the submissions, I think that some reasonable time should be given to the defendant to vacate the premises. It is brought to my notice that there are residential houses in both the premises and the hotel. In the ends of justice i pass the following Order. ( 10 ) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The Judgment and Decrees of the courts below passed in RA. Nos. 97 and 98/78 dated 9-4-1979, by the Civil Judge, Tiptur, and Judgments and Decrees Dated 31-8-77, passed in O. S. Nos. 21 and 74/75, on the file of the Munsiff, and JMFC, Chilekanayakanahalli, are confirmed and the following order is passed. The Defendant shall quit and deliver vacant possession of the residential house to the plaintiff within Nine months from to-day, and shall quit and deliver vacant possession of the Hotel premises within two years from to-day. The defendant shall continue to pay rents at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month even after the delivery of the possession of the residential house, the vacating hotel premises. At the time of vacating the premises and the Hotel, the defendant is at liberty to remove the structure and take away the material used by him. No costs. --- *** --- .