As per case facts, the plaintiff temple sought ejectment, rent arrears, and mesne profits from defendants 1-3, claiming an oral monthly lease. Defendants asserted ownership via sale deed and Will, ... alleging permanent tenancy and divestment of temple's rights under Act 26 of 1963, also seeking City Tenants Protection Act benefits. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it for the temple. The question arose whether the tenancy was permanent, if the lease origin was lost in ambiguity, and if Act 26/63 divested the temple's title. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in an ejectment suit, the landlord-tenant relationship is paramount. Defendants failed to prove permanent tenancy, particularly as the landlord is a religious institution where such presumption is absent. Their City Tenants Protection Act application estopped them from denying the landlord's title, affirming their tenancy.