17 25.08.2010 Present: None for the appellant. None for the respondent. + CM App! No. 15213/2010 (for exemption) in R.S.A. No. 159/2010 * Allowed subject to all just exceptions. R.S.A. No. 159/2010 This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 24.05.20 10 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 09.12.2009 who had decreed the suit of the plaintiff Gian Singh Gian for possession and mesne profits. The suit property was property bearing no. 18, Sewa Park, Gram Sabha, Navada Village, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Six issues have been framed by the trial court. Issue no. 3 related to the factum as to whether defendant no. 3 (present appellant) namely Mamta Rajawat was a tenant in the suit property at the rate of Rs. 2300/- per month. Onus to discharge this issue was on the defendant. The trial judge decided this issue against the defendants holding that the defendants have been permitted to occupy the suit property as a licensee. Decree of possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff along with mesne profits. This has been endorsed in the impugned judgment. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC had been filed before first appellate court as well which had been Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified rejected. None has appeared for the appellant in spite of the matter having been called twice. The substantial questions of law have been formulated at page 20 of the memo of appeal. They are all propositions of fact; they do not raise any questions of law much less any substantial question of law. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. / INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 25, 2010 SS 10