1 S.A. 1574.2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1574 OF 2005 Uttam Sonu Shirsath & others. Appellants V E R S U S Vishwanath Baburao Pol Respondent Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the appellants Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 9th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession on the basis of title. The trial Court decreed the suit, the defendant preferred an appeal. The District Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. 2. Shri Nagarkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the defendants were and are paying the taxes of the Municipal Council / Corporation. This fact would corroborate theory of the present appellants that they were the tenants. The plaintiffs were not issuing receipts, taking advantage of the said fact have filed the 2 S.A. 1574.2005 present suit. As per Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the licensee would get the benefit of a tenant from the notified date, and the said protection also needs to be given to the present appellant. 3. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the defendants had admitted the title of the plaintiff. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have held that there is no iota of evidence regarding the case put-forth by the defendants, and as the plaintiffs are the owners they are entitle for the possession. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgment. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. Even the defendants have admitted the same. The defendants have miserably failed to prove the said fact. There is no evidence worth the name to hold that defendants were inducted in the suit premises as a tenants, as the plaintiffs have proved the title, and the defendants failed to prove their case. The plaintiffs were entitled for possession. 5. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, as such, the same 3 S.A. 1574.2005 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ) SDM*1574.05SA/090311