222sa208.98.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.208 of 1998 (Sau. Leenabai w/o. Sadashivrao Tupte .vs. Smt. Indirabai w/o. Ramdasji Mahakalkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : February 22, 2010 Heard Mr. Roshan Dhande, Adv. holding for Mr.S.V.Bhutada, Adv. for appellant and Ms U. R. Tanna, Adv. for respondent. This appeal is preferred by the Original tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 6.12.1996 in Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1994 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 1996 decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara on 17.4.1998. The decree for possession has already been executed. Both the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that the tenancy of defendant was legally terminated and that the defendant was in arrears of rent amount of Rs.32,334/-. Accordingly, the decree for possession and arrears of rent, as also for enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12 ( c) of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are passed on the appreciation of evidence. At any rate, it is a possible view of the matter. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the suit was barred by 222sa208.98.odt 2 . limitation. However, this point was neither raised in the appeal nor in the suit. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be permitted to be raised. The learned Counsel further urged that wrong burden of proof was saddled upon the defendant. However, this is also a matter to which the Courts below have applied their mind and recorded a finding of fact. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE jais