1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.701 OF 2004. Bharat S/o Sitaram Dhavale, Age 48 years, Occ.Tailor, Proprietor of Master Fine Tailors, R/o Swami Dayanand Road,Near Akeli Masjid, Jalna. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Nandkishor S/o Chaganlal Malani, Age 47 years, Occ.Business, R/o Phool Bazar, Jalna. 2. Rajibai W/o Chaganlal Malani, Age 78 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Phool Bazar, Jalna. 3. Rajesh Nandkishor Malani, Age 27 years, Occ.Business, R/o Phool Bazar, Jalna. ... Respondents. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.702 OF 2004. Bharat S/o Sitaram Dhavale, Age 48 years, Occ.Tailor, Proprietor of Master Fine Tailors, R/o Swami Dayanand Road, Near Akeli Masjid, Jalna. ... Appellant. Versus 2 Nandkishor S/o Chaganlal Malani, Age 47 years, Occ.Business, R/o Phool Bazar, Jalna. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.S.Jagirdar, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the appellant. Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.10.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appellant had filed a suit for injunction restraining the present Respondents from interfering in enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant. The present Respondents had also filed the suit for possession in respect of the same subject matter on the ground that the appellant was a gratuitous licensee and inspite of the fact that the license is revoked has not delivered the possession. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the present Respondents and dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant. The present appellant challenged the judgment and decree in both the 3 suits by filing two separate appeals. The lower appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appellant has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeals. 2. Mr.Jagirdar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged agreement of leave and license has not been proved. There is nothing on record to substantiate this fact. Even the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the license agreement is not proved as is required under the law. The learned counsel further submitted that the Courts below have not considered the oral evidence of the witnesses who have categorically stated that the appellant is paying rent to the Respondents. 3. Per contra, Mrs.Chincholkar, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the present Respondents are the owners of the suit property and the same is undisputed fact. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the agreement of license is not proved, still, 4 the appellant has failed to prove his status of a tenant. In such circumstances, when the present Respondents are the owners are entitled for the possession on the basis of title. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The case of the present Respondents is that the appellant was a gratuitous licensee because of the cordial relations, the suit premises was given to him, whereas the appellant had come with a specific case that he was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant. Perusal of the judgments of both the Courts, it is manifest that the appellant has not been in a position to prove any payment of rent nor could prove the terms of the alleged tenancy. Unless the appellant proves his status as that of a tenant over the suit property, he would not be entitled to any decree and as it is admitted fact that the Respondents are the owners of the property, the Respondents shall be entitled for a decree of possession. 5 5. In light of the above, no substantial question of law is made out, as such the Second Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeals, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa70104