The suit was resisted by the appellant defendants on three grounds: (a) that the cabin was never given to the respondent plaintiff on leave and licence basis as alleged by him, that he was never in exclusive use and occupation thereof but the user of the cabin was given 651 to him because of his attachment as Honourary Surgeon to Dr. Amonkar Hospital, through the good offices of one Dr. Rawalia; that the writing on the stamp paper of Rs. 1.50 bearing date 4th May, 1970 signed by the respondent plaintiff reflected the true nature and character of the arrangement between the parties; it was emphatically denied that the said writing was obtained by late Dr. Amonkar for the purpose or motive suggested by the respondent plaintiff or was not intended to be acted upon, (b) that the cabin in question was not "premises" within the meaning of section 5 (8) (b) of the Act, inasmuch as the same could not be said to have been given on licence 'separately ' because the respondent plaintiff was permitted the user there of only for 2 1/2 hrs.