JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant, claiming therein rendition of a decree for vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs' suit stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it dis-concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiffs/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal here before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a house (No.199/11) situated in Katcha Tank Mohalla of Nahan town was jointly owned by the plaintiffs and that the defendant was allowed to resident in a portion thereof depicted by letter 'ABCDEFGHIJKL' in the site plan as a licensee in September, 1993. As to the license, which was initially created for a period of 11 months only, an agreement was executed by the licensee on September 25, 1993. The suit premises in respect of which license was created consisted of two rooms, a bath, a kitchen and a common toilet and the charges for use and occupation were agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. After expiry of the stipulated period the defendant, at her request was allowed to continue as a licensee. However, the use and occupation charges were enhanced to Rs.470/- per month w.e.f. January, 2000. On being married, she shifted to Delhi. Before leaving for Delhi She, instead of handing over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs, delivered possession to her parents. Terming her parents as trespassers, the plaintiffs averred that the defendant had also failed to pay the outstanding use and occupation charges amounting to Rs.5,000/- and that the licence created in her favour stood terminated by efflux of time as well as through a registered A.D. notice dated June 18, 2000. They, therefore, instituted the aforementioned suit for vacant possession of the suit premises and recovery of Rs.5,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides they prayed for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.470/- per month. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. Execution of a writing of September, 1993 inter se the defendant with the plaintiff was admitted. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. Execution of a writing of September, 1993 inter se the defendant with the plaintiff was admitted. It is submitted that the defendant was a student at the relevant time and did not have any independent source of income and was, therefore, completely dependent on her parents and that it was in fact her father Braham Dutt, who had taken from the plaintiffs a three roomed set on a monthly rental of Rs.600/-. About two months later, he shifted to a smaller apartment of the same house. The apartment to which he shifted was a two roomed set in respect of which the monthly rentals were Rs.400/-. Claiming to have been married in 1996, the defendant averred that shehad been living with her husband in Delhi, ever since, and that possession of her parents was as tenants and not as licensees. Her father, according to her, fell in arrears of rent from June 2000, since his money order was refused by the plaintiffs. 4. The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/respondent, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of possession of suit property, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If so its effect? OPD. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 11.10.2004, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned Additional District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied licence deed Ex. P-1, statement of plaintiff Jai Gopal Attri, as PW-1 without considering the statement of defendant Seema Sharma who appeared as DW1 and thus, erred in law in holding that Ex. P-1 is not in respect of suit premises? Substantial questions of Law No.1: 8. The execution of EX.P-1, inter se the co-plaintiffs and the sole defendant, one , Seema Sharma, stands proven, by affirmative depositions rendered by all executants thereof. Recitals borne in Ex.P-1, unfold that the contract of licence embodied therein being executed only inter se the co-plaintiffs and the sole defendant, one Seema Sharma. The aforesaid contract of licence would enable the plaintiffs to stake a claim for a decree of vacant possession being rendered in respect of premises embodied therein, despite the suit premises, after the departure therefrom of the sole defendant, one, Seema Sharma, hence, being retained by her parents, unless, subsequent thereto an apposite contract of licence stood also executed inter se the parents of Seema Sharma with the co-plaintiffs. Also the mere stay of the parents, of, defendant Seema Sharma, in the licensed premises, would not, preclude the learned Courts to pronounce a decree of eviction vis-a-vis them, given rendition of a decree of handing over of vacant possession of the relevant premises, being not either per individuo or in person am, rather obvioulsy its might and clout encompassing the relevant premises, premises whereof, are borne in Ex.P-1. Since, Ex.P-1 stands proven to be validly executed also subsequent thereto, a, notice borne in Ex.P-3, whereby the license in respect of suit premises of one Seema Sharma, stood rescinded, came to be issued upon her, notice whereof stood, not, received by her, despite, hers in her deposition underscoring the fact of the cover of Ex.P-3 reflecting her correct address. Since, Ex.P-1 stands proven to be validly executed also subsequent thereto, a, notice borne in Ex.P-3, whereby the license in respect of suit premises of one Seema Sharma, stood rescinded, came to be issued upon her, notice whereof stood, not, received by her, despite, hers in her deposition underscoring the fact of the cover of Ex.P-3 reflecting her correct address. The effect of sole defendant Seema Sharma, hence evidently intentionally avoiding to receive Ex.P-3, despite its being enclosed in a cover evidently bearing her correct address also hers consequently, not meteing any reply thereto, unfolding, the factum, of, on hers departing to Delhi, on, hers getting married, thereupon, the plaintiffs receiving the licence fee, from, her parents, hence, obviously in substitution of Ex.P-1, a novated contract of licence being executed inter se them, with, the plaintiffs. For intentional want of defendant Seema Sharma, meteing a befitting reply to Ex.P-3, with, the all aforesaid echoings therein, renders rudderless, the espousal in her written statement, of the decree of vacant possession qua the suit premises embodied in Ex.P-1, not, warranting any rendition upon her parents, the latter subsequent to her departure to Delhi, in rescission of Ex.P-1, entering into a fresh contract of licence with the co-plaintiffs. The defendant, had, in her deposition conceded to the trite factum, of, the receipt(s) with respect to the liquidations of the apposite licence fee to the landlords, standing, issued in her name, thereupon, it is to be concluded of any inference of the mother of the defendant, purportedly defraying licence fee(s) to the co-plaintiffs, getting blunted, corollary whereof is of hence upon the aforesaid purported count, any inference of, the mother of the defendant defraying licence fee vis-a-vis the co-plaintiffs, thereupon, a fresh implied oral contract of licence coming into being inter se her parents vis-a-vis the co-plaintiffs, also concomitantly getting benumbed. The effect of the aforesaid inference, would come to be overwhelmed, by sole defendant, one, Seema Sharma adducing before the learned trial Court, the money orders or other modes, whereby, her parents defrayed licence fee(s), qua the licenced premises vis-a-vis the plaintiffs, significantly, with adduction of the aforesaid best documentary evidence, being imperative, for firming up an inference, of, a fresh oral contract of licence vis-a-vis suit premises, coming into being inter se her parents with the plaintiffs. Sequel of its non adduction, is, of with Ex.P-1 standing executed inter se the plaintiffs with defendant Seema Sharma, thereupon, with obviously, the plaintiffs holding, no, privity of contract with the parents of the defendant nor subsequent to the departure of the defendant to Delhi, thereupon, on rescission of Ex.P-1, a, fresh contract of tenancy, express or implied occurring inter se the plaintiffs and her parents, renders the relevant premises to be open for a decree of vacant possession in respect thereof being pronounced, even if, possession thereof is held by the parents of sole defendant Seema Sharma. 9. Be that as it may, despite all the aforesaid inferences emanating, from the relevant evidence, on record, the learned First Appellate Court, had, reversed the apposite decree of eviction rendered by the learned trial Court, merely on the ground of the parents of defendant Seema Sharma, after the latter's departure, to Delhi in the year 1996, hence, holding possession of the licenced premises, also on score of the plaintiffs being un-controvertedly proven to receive the apposite licence fee(s) from parents of the defendant. The aforesaid conclusion(s) formed by the lerned First Appellate Court are obviously mis-founded also are (a) not bed-rocked upon appropriate appreciation, by it, of the relevant besides germane evidence, apt appreciation(s) whereof contrarily purveys an inference of, with evidently, no, privity of contract existing inter se the plaintiff and the parents of sole defendant Seema Sharma, rather the contract of licence occurring only inter se defendant Seema Sharma with the plaintiffs. (b) Moreover with the contract of licence, suffering rescission under an intentionally evaded, un-served notice borne in Ex.P-3, standing issued by the plaintiffs upon defendant Seema Sharma, renders the suit premises, dehors, theirs being occupied by the parents of the contracting licensee, to be amenable, for a decree of vacant possession being pronounced in respect thereof, as aptly done by the learned trial Court. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. 11. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly allowed. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. 11. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 52-N/13 of 2002, on, 31.3.2003 is quashed and set aside, whereas, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Suit No. 71/1 of 2001 on 6.7.2002 is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.