1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.54/2009 [Sau. Trivenidevi w/o Sukhalal Sahu .vrs. Vinod Motilal Sahu] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 11 th February, 2009. Heard Advocate Aditya Deshpande with Advocate Anand Deshpande for the appellant/original defendant. The challenge is to concurrent judgment delivered by Adhoc District Judge-1, Amravati in RCA No.259/2003 on 7.11.2008 asking the appellant to vacate the suit premises. The defence of the present appellant was that she is the tenant of original owner i.e. her mother. The courts have found that the mother permitted her daughter to occupy a room in the suit house and the daughter was only paying electricity charges of the said room. The contention of Advocate Deshpande is that the documents on record to show that the daughter has paid the rent to her mother. Perusal of both the judgment show that after the present appellant learnt about the transaction between the 2 plaintiff and the previous owner Smt. Kesharbai Sahu (her mother), thereafter she forwarded money orders. This appreciation is neither erroneous nor perverse. Advocate Deshpande contend that as the appellant has paid consideration, there cannot be any licence. My attention is also invited to admission given by mother in which mother accepted that she was maintaining the suit house through rent. It is contended that the daughter was the only tenant. However, there is nothing on record to show that there was no other tenant in the suit house. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Gulande