sa357.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 357/2009 Mohammadkhan Bhurekhan & ors. ..vs.. Papakha Rajdarkha Muslim, Ashrafura (Dead) thr. Lrs Jalalkha s/o Papakha Muslim & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. I. S. Charlewar, Advocate for applicant. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : January 27, 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact holding that the appellants/defendants were licensees in respect of suit premises and the license was revoked by plaintiffs by giving notice dated 06.07.1995. It has been held that there was no payment of license fee or rent and hence there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and hence the provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are not attracted. The defence raised by the appellants/defendants that they have become owner of the property on the basis of oral gift by one Gulab Khan has also been rejected. The appellate Court held that there was no evidence brought on record to establish the requisites of valid oral gift. 3. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that the sa357.09.odt 2 Courts below have erred in holding that the defendants have failed to establish the oral gift. However, he has failed to point out any evidence on record to establish the requisites of valid gift. The learned counsel has further urged that the provisions of C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are applicable to the suit premises. However, the Courts below have recorded a finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and there is no evidence on record to show that any licensee fee was paid and hence provisions of Rent Control Order are not applicable. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial question of law. 4. In view of above, there is no substance in the present second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, at this stage, prays for protection of appellants’ possession for a period of six weeks. However, since there is no substantial question of law involved in the present matter, I do not find that any case is made out for protection also. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. J UDGE kahale