Judgment :- (Second Appeal filed under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.45 of 2004 dated 31.1.2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur; reversing the judgment and decree in OS.No.90 of 2001 dated 6.8.2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur.) Challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District made in A.S.No.45 of 2004,allowing the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants and dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, the appellants have brought forth this second appeal. 2. It was a suit filed by the appellants herein against the two defendants, who are the respondents herein, seeking for a permanent injunction that the defendants should be restrained from opening or allowing to open a new canteen to public alleging that the plaintiffs are licensees in respect of the suit mentioned premises which belonged to the defendants and they took it on lease and they have been running a canteen from 1998 onwards and they have been paying monthly rent of Rs.200/-. The first plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4000/- as advance, while the second plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- for improvement of the building. They have been making payment all along without any arrears whatsoever. They have also filed two suits in O.S.Nos.76 of 2001 and 74 of 2001 restraining the defendants therein from vacating or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the respective shops. While the agreement entered into between the parties is in force, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are trying to allow the third parties to run other canteens within the same compound. Thus it would affect the entire business of the plaintiffs herein and hence they should be restrained by way of permanent injunction. While the agreement entered into between the parties is in force, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are trying to allow the third parties to run other canteens within the same compound. Thus it would affect the entire business of the plaintiffs herein and hence they should be restrained by way of permanent injunction. 3.The suit was resisted by the first defendant viz., the Director of Bethesda Hospital stating that the canteen referred to in the plaint belonged to IELC Trust Association but the trust was not added as a party and on that ground, the suit was to be dismissed; that the plaintiffs can seek relief to protect their interest but they had no right to seek relief infringing the fundamental rights available to the defendants; that the plaintiffs were granted only license to run the canteen but they were not tenants of the defendants; that the amount received from the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.200/- per month was not a rent but only a license fee and that the same would be evident from the documents filed by the plaintiffs and hence, the suit was to be dismissed. 4. Necessary issues were framed by the trial court. On trial, the learned Additional District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, granted a decree of injunction, which was challenged by the appellants before the Sub Court by way of an appeal, in which, the Sub Court, Tirupattur, set aside the decree granted by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved plaintiffs have brought forth this appeal. 5.The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 6.The Court on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and on scrutiny of the material, is of the considered view that the appeal does not require admission by this Court, since, the Court is unable to notice any question of law, much less substantial question of law in the second appeal. 7. The gist of the case of the plaintiffs was that both the plaintiffs were tenants in respect of two separate premises under the defendants for running their respective canteens. It is also admitted that two different suits were filed by the same plaintiffs against the defendants. It is a matter of surprise to note how both these plaintiffs had same cause of action in a suit like this. It is also admitted that two different suits were filed by the same plaintiffs against the defendants. It is a matter of surprise to note how both these plaintiffs had same cause of action in a suit like this. On this ground, the suit was liable to be rejected. 8.Secondly, it was the case of the plaintiffs that they were tenants under the defendants. The first defendant has filed a written statement stating that the property belonged to the trust and that the trust was not a party. On that ground also,the suit was to be dismissed. 9.Thirdly, it was a specific case of the plaintiffs that they were tenants under the defendants. Even the document filed by the plaintiffs did not whisper or show that they were tenants of the defendants. But they were only licensees. Under the circumstances, the first Appellate Court has pointed out the defects and found that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 10. Apart from that, the injunction what was one asked for cannot be granted since as per the agreement, the owner of the premises would not restrict his rights to lease the property to outsiders and no material is placed to accept the case of the plaintiffs. 11. Under the circumstances of the case, the first Appellate Court was perfectly correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court, which was erroneously made and the above second appeal does not carry any merit. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP.No.14140 of 2005 is also dismissed. 12.The trial court, where both the suits filed by the plaintiffs are pending, has to pass judgment on the merit of the matter and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the second appeal.