: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.797 OF 2009 Jairam Pandurang Gaikar ... Applicant V/s. Shri Mahadeo alias Madhu Halya Patil & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Dhananjay Pathak for Applicant Mr.P.K. Shetty for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. By concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below, the declaratory suit filed by the applicant before the Small Causes Court has been dismissed. The applicant claimed that he was entitled to the protection as a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act since he was a sub-tenant of the original tenant prior to 1971. Both the Courts have found the applicant was unable to establish through evidence that he became a protected tenant in view of the amendment to the Rent Act in 1973. No documents were produced to establish the applicant’s residence in the suit premises prior to 1973. 2. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that all documents pertaining to the period prior to 1973 were damaged in a fire which broke out in the chawl in which the suit premises are situated. : 2 : 3. In my opinion, the trial Court and the appellate Court have committed no error by not accepting the evidence of the applicant. The applicant was unable to establish his presence in the suit premises as a licencee, prior to 1.2.1973. Furthermore, he did not examine Parshuram Mokal who he claimed was witness to the transaction between himself and Defendant No.1. 4. Civil revision application is dismissed.