JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 5/12 of 2011. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiffs" for convenience sake) being owners of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 66/126-127 filed a suit for possession of house (Gair Mumkin Pucca do Manzila) situated over Khasra No. 863 and Gair Mumkin Shochalaya in Khasra No. 861 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises) against the defendant Ajit Kumar. Ajit Kumar died during the pendency of the suit and the possession of the disputed premises was succeeded by his legal representatives. According to the plaintiffs, out of the building situated in Khasra No. 863, one room in ground floor., two rooms and kitchen on first floor and a toilet situated in Khasra No. 861 were given to Sh. Sadhu Ram, father of defendant, 58 years back. The premises were given to Sadhu Ram without any rent as licencee. He was engaged as a Chowkidar. He was doing sweeping work in the residential house of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest. His possession was permissive. Since the plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant in the premises any more, they have withdrawn their permission vide notice dated 20.7.2006 intimating the withdrawal of the permission to the defendant requiring him to vacate the accommodation on or before 31.8.2006. The plaintiffs also prayed for use and occupation charges Rs. 500/- per day from the defendant. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he was in possession of the suit premises in the capacity of tenant. According to him, prior to him, his father Sadhu Ram was the tenant in disputed premises at monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. A sum of Rs. 70/- per month was being paid regularly to the plaintiffs or their servants. After the death of Sadhu Ram. the tenancy was inherited by him. He has denied that he was doing sweeping work in the house of plaintiffs. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 23.4.2007. He decreed the suit on 28.5.2011. After the death of Sadhu Ram. the tenancy was inherited by him. He has denied that he was doing sweeping work in the house of plaintiffs. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 23.4.2007. He decreed the suit on 28.5.2011. The defendants were directed to hand over the vacant possession as per site plan Ex.P.W. 3/A to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of decree. The defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.5.2011 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. Fast Track Court. He also dismissed the same on 30.6.2012. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 5. Mr. S.C. Sharma, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, his clients were tenants. 6. Mr. Neeraj Gupta has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. P.W. 1 Janesh Mahajan has testified that Sh. Ajit Kumar and prior to him, his father Sadhu Ram were employed as Sweeper and Chowkidar by the plaintiffs in their residential house and in lieu thereof they were permitted to put up in the disputed premises. According to him, no rent was received by the plaintiffs from the defendant or his father Sadhu Ram. The plaintiffs were no more interested to retain the services of defendant and wanted him to vacate the disputed premises. A notice Ex.P.W. 1/A was issued to the defendant. Postal receipt Ex.P.W. 1/B and acknowledgement Ex.P.W. l/C were duly proved. He has also deposed that when the defendant appeared as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in a previous civil suit titled as Ratna Sharma v. Prem Raj Mahajan, he has admitted himself to be a licencee in the disputed premises. He has denied the suggestion that the defendants were paying Rs. 70/- per month as rent to the plaintiffs. 9. P.W. 2 Vipan Arora has supported the version of the plaintiff. He has deposed that the defendant was employed as Chowkidar and Sweeper by the plaintiffs in their property. 10. He has denied the suggestion that the defendants were paying Rs. 70/- per month as rent to the plaintiffs. 9. P.W. 2 Vipan Arora has supported the version of the plaintiff. He has deposed that the defendant was employed as Chowkidar and Sweeper by the plaintiffs in their property. 10. The record of Civil Suit No. 48/1997 was produced by P.W. 4 Surender Pun, Senior Assistant of this Court. The statement made by Ajit Kumar was proved vide Ex.P.W. 5/A. 11. Ajit Kumar has appeared as D.W. 1. According to him, his father had taken the premises on rent. He was paying 70/- per month. He has denied that he or his father ever worked as Chowkidar in the residential house of the plaintiffs. He has denied the suggestion that one Ms. Ratna had filed a civil suit against Prem Raj and Nagesh in which he had appeared as witness of defendants. He was confronted with statement Ex.P.W. 5/A. He has denied that statement Ex.P.W. 5/A was made by him. He has admitted the issuance of notice Ex.P.W. 1/A. 12. D.W. 2 Dev Raj has deposed that he did not know in what capacity the defendant was occupying the disputed premises. 13. What emerges from the evidence led by the plaintiffs is that defendant Ajit Kumar was permitted to use the disputed premises in lieu of the services rendered earlier by his father and thereafter by him as Chowkidar/Sweeper. P.W. 1 Janesh Mahajan has denied that Ajit Kumar or his father were tenants of the premises. He has denied that the defendant was paying 70/- as rent per month. The defendant has not even chosen to file the reply to notice Ex.P.W. 1/A. In case, he was claiming himself to be tenant, he should have deposited the rent before the Rent Controller. While appearing in Civil Suit No. 48/1997 as D.W. 2, defendant Ajit Kumar had categorically admitted that he and prior to him his father were employed as Chowkidar/Sweeper in Avondale building. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he is not a tenant of Nagesh Mahajan and resides in the Avondale building as Chowkidar. The defendant cannot resile from the previous statement Ex.P.W. 5/A. It is not the case of defendant that somebody else has personated for him. It cannot be stated that the statement Ex.P.W. 5/A was wrongly recorded. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he is not a tenant of Nagesh Mahajan and resides in the Avondale building as Chowkidar. The defendant cannot resile from the previous statement Ex.P.W. 5/A. It is not the case of defendant that somebody else has personated for him. It cannot be stated that the statement Ex.P.W. 5/A was wrongly recorded. The defendants were residing in the house as a licencee and not as tenants. The notice for the revocation of licence has been issued vide Ex.P.W. 1 /A on 20.7.2006. 14. Mr. S.C. Sharma has vehemently argued that the premises were occupied by the defendants as tenants. He has strongly relied upon Associated Hotels of India Limited v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262 . In this case lease deed was executed between the parties. However, in the instant case, no document has been placed on record by the defendant to prove that he was tenant of the premises. 15. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. The defendants are ordered to vacate the premises on or before 10.9.2013. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.