1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.377 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4340 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL REVISINO APPLICATION NO. 378 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4341 OF 2009 Mayadevi Ramprasad Saxena ... Petitioner (Ortg.Defendant) Vs. India Farmers Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent (Orig.Plaintiff) Mr. R.A.Thorat a/w Mr. P.B.Gujar,Advocate, for the petitioner.. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar a/w Mr.Sachin V. Dhakephalkar,Advocates, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 18th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The revision-petitioner is in occupation of the suit premises since 1977. Admittedly, the said premises belong to the respondent-company. The respondent filed LE & C Suit No.129/150 of 1980 for eviction and possession. 2 According to them, sometime in September, 1977, the petitioner approached the Managing Director with a request to allow her to occupy the suit premises because her husband, who was then serving in Navy, was due to retire shortly and would be required to vacate the service accommodation provided to him. The then Managing Director allowed her to occupy the premises and also offered her part-time work in the farm of the company. Thus, she came in occupation of the premises as a licensee without payment of rent. However, there were complaints about her work and, therefore, she was asked to vacate, but she failed and therefore the suit. The petitioner also filed RAD Suit No.2353/1979 seeking declaration that she is the tenant in the said premises and she cannot be evicted without following due process of law under the Rent Act. After hearing the parties, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-company and dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two appeals against the said common judgment. The appeals also came to be dismissed. 3. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner could not produce any document to support her claim that she was a tenant and paying amount of Rs.40/- per month to the company. If she was a tenant of the company, she must have obtained rent receipts from the company, but admittedly, she is not 3 in possession of any such receipts. On the other hand, the then Managing Director of the company was examined as a witness and he deposed about the circumstances in which she was allowed to occupy the premises as a gratuitous licensee. His evidence finds support from the documents on record. The first such document is the letter dated 10.9.1977 from the petitioner to the Managing Director of the company wherein she expressed her thanks for giving her a chance to work for the company as a part-time worker and she also stated that she would look after the bungalow and do any other work allotted to her. In her letter dated 25.9.1977, addressed to the Managing Director, she admitted that she was working as a par-time worker from 1.10.1977. In that letter, she clearly stated that her husband had retired from the Navy and would be required to vacate the premises allotted by the Navy. Therefore, she requested for accommodation in the premises of the Managing Director for a short time. She also assured that she would vacate the accommodation before June 1978 as by that time, examination of her children will be over. It appears from the record that sometime in May 1979, a letter was given to her by the Managing Director to vacate the premises as she was not punctual and diligent in discharging her work. She admitted her signatures on number of vouchers about payment of wages as part-time worker in the farm of the company. The Courts below held that strictly speaking she is not an employee of the company and it could not be said that the accommodation was provided to 4 her as service accommodation but both the Courts below gave concurrent finding that in view of the facts and circumstances, she was not a tenant but only a gratuitous licensee. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. I do not see any reason to interfere in the said findings and the order for eviction. 4. Therefore, the Revision Applications stand dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay for 8 weeks to the eviction decree. However, the petitioner is not willing to make a statement that she would vacate the premises. Therefore, this request cannot be considered and stands rejected. 6. As the C.R.As. are dismissed, C.A. Nos.274/2009, 275/2009 and 276/2009 do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)