JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent. This is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time when it was admitted on 09.05.1979 the following substantial questions of law had been framed:- (1)Whether there was no evidence at all that the defendants were paying any rent to the plaintiff and in the absence of any such evidence the Court below acted illegally in holding the defendants to be tenants? (II) Whether the Courts below have acted on conjectures and surmises and not on any material on record in holding that Ganga Ram was not a licensee but a tenant? 2. The Trial Court while deciding Issue No.3 has recorded that although the defendant was the Kochwan of the plaintiff to look after his vehicles and was given the Astabal to live therein but when the family of the defendant was living in two rooms of the first floor it cannot be believed that the plaintiff would permit the defendant's family to live free of cost in his accommodation and, therefore, the case set up by the defendant that he was paying Rs.8/- as rent for the accommodation has to be believed. 3. While perusing the impugned order it will be seen that this was a case of only oral evidence and the defendant has relied upon the statement of certain neighbours of the premises in question. The statement of the neighbours cannot prove the relationship between the plaintiff and the respondent, if the respondent claims right as a tenant. On the other hand the Trial Court has recorded that insofar as Astabal is concerned the defendant was a licenses and such license had been validly terminated. 4. The First Appellate Court in a very cursory manner has recorded that after the death of Ganga Ram on 02.02.1976 who was Kochwan his family continued to live in two rooms and since there was no vehicle since last 5 to 6 years the said Ganga Ram was not rendering any other service and, therefore, the occupation of the two rooms in the premises would be naturally on payment of rent. There is no cogent evidence that the defendants were paying rent to the plaintiff and, therefore, it was a case of no evidence regarding payment of rent by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The first substantial question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by holding that such finding has been recorded without any cogent evidence and as such the finding being perverse can be set aside in a second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. It is accordingly set aside. 5. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, clearly the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures. The relevant portion of the finding of the Trial Court is quoted hereunder:- " okn fcUnw la0&1 okn i= es oknh dk dFku gS fd fookfnr dejks esa xaxkjke oknh ds vuqKkfr/kkjh ds :i es jgrk FkkA vius dFku dks fl} djus ds fy;s oknh us Lo;a viuk c;ku fn;k gSA mlds foijhr izfroknhx.k dk dFku gS fd os bl edku dss 8@&izfrekg ds oknh ds fdjk;snkj gS rFkk DW1 lwjt rFkk DW2 vCnqy yrhQ ds c;ku gq;s gS ftudk dFku gS fd izfroknhx.k fdjk;snkj gSA nksuks i{kks dh vksj ls dsoy ekSf[kd lk{; gh nh x;h gSA eq>s oknh dk dFku vfr'oluh; izrhr gksrk gSA oknh dk ;g dFku rks ekuk tk ldrk gS fd pwfd xaxkjke mldk dkspoku FkkA vr% xaxkjke dks mlus xkMh[kkus es jgus dh vuqefr ns nh gksxh ijUrq mlds ifjokj dks jgus ds fy;s ,d vU; edku fcuk fdjk;s ds nsus dh ckr fo'oluh; izrhr ugh gksrh gSA esjs fopkj ls xaxkjke fookfnr dejks es oknh dk vuqKkfr/kkjh ugh Fkk oju og fdjk;snkj Fkk ftudh e`R;q ij izfoknhx.k fdjk;snkj gSA 7- okn fcUnw la01 udkjkRed oknh ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gS rFkk oknfcUnq la03 ldkjkRed oknh ds foijhr r; fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. Admittedly, there was no evidence with respect to payment of rent and after recording the finding that Ganga Ram was Kochwan and was permitted to live in the Astabal the Court below has on the basis of surmises and conjectures recorded that he would be a tenant with respect to other two rooms. The aforesaid finding of the Court below is also perverse and is liable to be set aside. The aforesaid finding of the Court below is also perverse and is liable to be set aside. The judgment and decree dated 01.02.1978 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Civil Appeal No.382 of 1977, arising out of Original Suit No.192 of 1976 is accordingly set aside. 7. Since the defendant was living and were in occupation of the premises in question on the basis of license granted by the plaintiff and such license has been pleaded by the plaintiff to have been revoked/ cancelled the possession of the defendants on the premises in question subsequent thereto was clearly illegal, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to be granted the relief of possession. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the suit of the plaintiff for possession and dispossession of the defendants stands decreed. 9. The appeal is allowed. No order is passed as to costs.