1 Cra-1043.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1043 OF 2010 Mr.Deeplal G. Tikamdasot & Others. .. Applicants Vs Mrs. Sunanda Rajendra Kumbhat & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Navin Shah & Ms Meenaz Merchant i/b Haresh Ganatra for the Applicants. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicants. The Applicants are the obstructionists in the execution of a decree for possession. The obstructionist notice taken out by the decree holders has been made absolute. An appeal was preferred by the Revision Applicants before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The said appeal has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that there is documentary evidence on record to show that the Applicants were in possession of the premises in question under a subsisting licence on 1st February, 1973. He has placed reliance on the driving licence of one of the 2 Cra-1043.10 Applicants and the letter dated 21st January, 1982. He submitted that a Trust is claiming to be the landlord and the Trustees of the Trust have been continuously changing and there is no permission granted by the Charity Commissioner to execute the decree. 3. I have considered the submissions. Reliance is placed on the driving licence standing in the name of the 1st Applicant. It is submitted that the licence was issued in the year 1969 and the address of the disputed premises is shown therein. This aspect has been dealt with by the Courts below and especially by the Appellate Court. The permanent address of the 1st Applicant is of a different premises at Walkeshwar and subsequently, the temporary address of the suit premises has been added. What was produced before the Courts below was a duplicate licence issued on 14th August, 1973. Moreover, no evidence is adduced to show that the temporary address mentioned on the licence was added prior to 1st February, 1973. This is relevant in the context of the fact that the Applicants are claiming the rights as a protected licensees under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. 4. As far as the letter dated 21st January, 1982 is concerned, it records that the 1st Applicant was in possession of the garage since June, 1972. It is pertinent to note that the said letter has been issued on 21st January, 1982. The Appellate Court has recorded the cogent reasons in 3 Cra-1043.10 paragraphs 15 and 16 of its judgment for rejecting the evidence of the said letter. 5. As far as the other objections are concerned, there may be change in the constitution of the Trust by appointment of new trustees. There is a decree for possession in favour of the said Trust and it cannot be said that the present trustees have no right to execute the decree. 6. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below against the Applicants who are obstructionists. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected. 7. Ad-interim relief granted on 10th December, 2010 will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J)