JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The legal heirs of the Plaintiff are the Appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the eider brother of his father Gopinath Sahu took lease of stall No. 3 in Victoria Market which is known as Giri Market in Berhampur town belonging to the Berhampur Municipality who is Defendant No. 3 in the suit. According to the Plaintiff, the suit shall was taken on lease on behalf of their family about 35 years prior to filing of the suit and the original lessee Gopinath Sahu was running grocery business in the said stall. Thereafter the father of the Plaintiff hiadibandhu started a business in the same premises and the Plaintiff was helping his father in running the said business. Subsequently, the family got separated but the father of the Plaintiff continued to run the business in the suit stall. Even after death of Gopinath Sahu. 10 to 12 years prior to the filing of the suit, the lease continued and the father of the Plaintiff also continued to use the said premises for the purpose of running the business. Due to some misunderstanding with the father, the Plaintiff left Berhampur in 1976 and during the absence of the Plaintiff, his father had employed Defendant No. 2 on daily wage basis to help him in business. In course of such employment, Defendant No. 1 and 2 who are brothers continued to help the father of the Plaintiff till the Plaintiff came back in the year 1978 and joined his father in the business. After the Plaintiff joined the business, Defendants 1 and 2 created trouble as a result of which the suit had to be filed for permanent injunction. 3. The Defendants 1 and 2 filed joint written statement stating that the suit stall originally was leased out in favour of Gopinath Sahu. When Gopinath Sahu was sold and unable to manage the business personally, he requested Defendant No. 2 who is related to him to run the business in the suit stall and since then Defendant No. 2 is in exclusive possession of the same. In the meantime, Defendant No. 3 Berhampur Municipality also granted lease of the suit stall in favour of Defendant No. 2 with effect from 1.2.1978 and accordingly the Plaintiff had absolutely no right 'o occupy the suit stall. In the meantime, Defendant No. 3 Berhampur Municipality also granted lease of the suit stall in favour of Defendant No. 2 with effect from 1.2.1978 and accordingly the Plaintiff had absolutely no right 'o occupy the suit stall. 4 Defendant No. 3 Berhampur Municipality also contested the suit by filing a written statement. According to the Municipality originally the suit stall was leased out in favour of late Gopinath Sahu in the year 1964 and after his death, lease in respect of the suit stall has been granted in favour of Defendant No. 2 who is in possession of the same. The specific case of the Municipality is that the house was never allotted to the family of the Plaintiff and as such neither the Plaintiff nor his father ever possessed the suit stall. Further ground was taken that the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 349 of the Orissa Municipal Act. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as eight issues and ultimately came to the following findings: (i) After death of Gopinath Sahu who was original lessee, his brother Hadibandhu Sahu continued to run the business in the suit stall and paid rem to the Municipality (ii) There is no illegality in granting lease of the suit stall in favour of Defendant No. 2 by the Municipality and that after 1976, the Defendants 1 and 2 were practically managing the business in the suit stall on behalf of the Plaintiff's father. (iii) Merely because the Municipality accepted rent from the Plaintiff in the name of the original lessee, it cannot be said that there was contractual relationship as landlord and tenant between them. (iv) The suit is also not maintainable for want of service of notice u/s 349 of Orissa Municipality Act. 6. The suit having been dismissed on the above findings, an appeal was carried before the learned Second Additional District Judge. Berhampur by the Original Plaintiff During pendency of the appeal, the original Plaintiff died and his legal representatives who are Appellants before this Court were substituted. The said appeal was also dismissed on similar grounds and having lost in the appeal also, the present second appeal has been filed. 7. Berhampur by the Original Plaintiff During pendency of the appeal, the original Plaintiff died and his legal representatives who are Appellants before this Court were substituted. The said appeal was also dismissed on similar grounds and having lost in the appeal also, the present second appeal has been filed. 7. The appeal was admitted and the following substantial question was formulated by the Court: Whether in view of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit stall he would be entitled to injunction against Respondent No. 2 and whether the Municipality has the authority to grant licence in favour of. Respondent No. 2 without getting the Appellant evicted from the suit stall. Shri Ratho, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants challenged the findings of the Courts below on the ground that the evidence on record clearly indicates that even though the original lease was in the name of the uncle of the Plaintiff, in fact the father of the Plaintiff was on possession of the same and was running the business there and thereafter the Plaintiff continued the business. Though it is admitted in the plaint that the original lessee died 10 to 12 years after prior to filing of the suit, the Plaintiff continued to possess the suit premises and the Municipality also accepted rent in the name of original lessee who had died by that time and accordingly a fresh lease was crated in favour of the Plaintiff. During suosistence of such lease there was no scope for the Municipality to grant second d lease in favour of Defendant No. 2. It is also submitted by Shri Ratho that even accepting the fact that the Plaintiff is unauthorised occupant of the shop room, no lease can be granted in respect of the same in favour of Defendant No. 2 without evicting him from the suit stall in due process of law. 8. None appeared for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court and Shri N.K. Misra appeared on behalf of the Berhampur Municipality-Defendant No. 3. According to Shri Misra, mere acceptance of rent in the name of a dead person who was the original lessee does not create any lease in favour of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly go to show that after the Plaintiff left Berhampur in the year 1976, Defendant Nos. According to Shri Misra, mere acceptance of rent in the name of a dead person who was the original lessee does not create any lease in favour of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly go to show that after the Plaintiff left Berhampur in the year 1976, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were engaged by the father of the Plaintiff to run the business and since then they continued in the suit stall. In view of such evidence which is accepted by the Courts below, this Court should not disturb the said finding. Shri Misra also filed a petition for adducing additional evidence in which it is stated that the lessee granted in favour of the Defendant No. 2 has been cancelled and vacant possession has been taken from them in the month of July, 1987 and fresh lease has been granted in favour of one Rabindra Maharana on 7.8.87. Since the date of such lease Rabindra Maharana occupying the said premises without disturbance from any quarter. Relevant documents in support of such contention have also been filed along with the petition. 9. Undisputedly the lease was granted in favour of Gopinath Sahu who is the paternal uncle of the original Plaintiff. Admittedly there as no lease in favour of either the Plaintiff or his father in respect of the suit stall at any point of time. After death of the original lessee, Gopinath Sahoo rent was paid to the Municipality in the name of late Gopinath Sahu and the same was accepted. Since rent 'was paid in the name of Gopinath Sahu who was a original lessee, acceptance of such rent cannot create a fresh lease in favour of the either the Plaintiff or his father and the Plaintiff is to be treated as an unauthorised occupam if at all he was in possession of the suit premises. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Plaintiff left Beihampur and his father had engaged Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to run the business and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that after the Plaintiff came back in the year 1978 he remained in exclusive possession of the suit premises or that the Defendants 1 and 2 were dispossessed. 1 and 2 to run the business and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that after the Plaintiff came back in the year 1978 he remained in exclusive possession of the suit premises or that the Defendants 1 and 2 were dispossessed. In view of such evidence on record, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the original Plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit premises after 1978 and prior to that his father was occupying the same. Both the Courts below having concurrently found that the Defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of the suit premises and there being no dispute that at no point of time the suit premises had been leased out in favour of either Plaintiff or his father, I do not find nay reason to differ with the findings of the Courts below. 10. Since I see no merit in the appeal, I have not taken the additional evidence into consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed