IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 631 OF 1995 Mahadev Kondiba Gore. ... Appellant. Versus. Bhagwant Suryabhan Bansale. ... Respondent. Shri Vineet Naik for the Appellant. Shri Sahasrabudhe i/by Shri G.S.Godbole for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 4th May, 2005. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The Appeal is by the original Defendant. Suit for possession filed by the original Plaintiff on the basis of title has been decreed by the trial Court. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff is that the Appellant/ Defendant who was working as a servant in a shop run by the Respondent’s father was allowed to occupy the suit premises without payment of any consideration. From the year 1981, the Appellant ceased to be in the employment and therefore, suit for possession was filed. The trial Court accepted the case made out by the Respondent and passed a decree for possession. 2. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant in the District Court has been dismissed. The Courts below have held that the Appellant has failed to establish the : 2 : plea that he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Courts below have negatived the plea of tenancy and have accepted the case that the possession of the Appellant over the suit premises was purely a permissive possession. 3. Considering the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge.