1 S.A.NO.766/2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.766 OF 2008. Ashok s/o Gopikishan Sharma, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, Resident of Block No.ESW 268, Ramnagar Colony, Jalna. ...Appellant. (Ori.Defendant.) VERSUS Shyamsunder s/o Chunnilal Gaud, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labourer, Resident of Modikhana, Jalna, District Jalna. ...Respondent. (Ori.Plaintiff.) ... Mr.R.R.Imale, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.J.C.Badve, Advocate, for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 3rd August, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. The Second Appeal is challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellant was permissive user as gratuitous 2 S.A.NO.766/2008. licensee of the respondent in respect of the suit house. The Courts below rejected the appellant's defence that he had agreed to purchase the suit house for a sum of Rs.30,000/- which he paid to the respondent in presence of two witnesses. Thus, the respondent’s suit was decreed. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant raised two points. First, he said that the Courts below erred in holding that the suit was within limitation. He said, that if the appellant was admittedly inducted in the suit house in 1989, the suit filed in 2005 was hopelessly time barred in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Courts below rejected this contention saying that the limitation had started on 23rd February, 1994 when the respondent issued notice to quit. I find nothing wrong in this finding. There is no question of law based on limitation arising in this appeal. 3. The second point, the learned Advocate for the appellant raised was the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He said that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit because it was hit by Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. This submission is also devoid of merit. The provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, will not apply to the transaction in question, because the respondent 3 S.A.NO.766/2008. specifically mentioned in the plaint that the appellant was inducted in the premises as gratuitous licensee, without fee. The definition of term, "Licensee" mentioned in sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Rent Act, does not include the gratuitous licensee. So, the transaction of this nature is not covered by the provisions of the Rent Act. The Civil Court thus had jurisdiction to try the suit. The appeal should, therefore, fail. The appeal stands dismissed. 4. In view of this, Civil Application No. 3899/2008 does not survive. The order of interim relief, dated 18th July, 2009 passed by this Court in the Civil Application stands vacated. Civil Application stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp