Reserved Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 29 of 2010. Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Devi Dutt. … Appellant. Vs. Ajit Krishna Chaube S/O Sri Prankrishna Chaube and another. …Respondents. Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents no.1. Date July 20, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25-5-2010 passed by the District Judge, Champawat, in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008,Ajit Krishna Chaube Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and others, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against the defendants-appellant and respondent no.2. The second appeal has been filed on the ground that the first appellant court without considering the material evidence led by the parties set aside the judgment of the trial court and thus committed a manifest error of law and also failed to consider the difference between the lease and licence. According to the appellant, she is a tenant in the premises in question and not a licensee and she is regularly depositing the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It may be noted that this rent is being deposited by the appellant at her own risk in Rent Control Case No. 7 of 2005, Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Sri Ajit Kumar Chaube, as has been mentioned in the interim order passed in the Civil Suit No. 15 of 2005 pending between the parties. 2 Brief facts giving rise to this appeal, according to the appellant, are that the disputed accommodation was let out to the appellant by the father of respondent no. 1 in the year 1983 @ Rs. 20/- per month. In the year 2005, the respondent no. 1 threatened the appellant to dispossess her forcibly. The appellant, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 15 of 2005 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Champawat. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The trial court allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of listing by its order dated 27-7-2005. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 sent a notice to the appellant for vacating the accommodation in question and subsequently filed a suit for eviction bearing Original Suit No. 5 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Champawat against the appellant and her husband. According to respondent no. 1, the husband of the appellant was a licensee and he was given the accommodation in question. The husband of the appellant and the appellant herself were occupying the accommodation as licensee. The respondent no.2, husband of the appellant is not living in the accommodation and he is doing work out of the city. By giving notice, licence was terminated and suit for ejectment was filed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent no.1 on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 failed to prove that he is the owner of the property and the respondents are licensee. Issue No. 2 was framed to the effect “whether defendant no. 2 is a tenant in the disputed house? This issue was decided against the appellant- defendant no.2 and it has been held that the appellant-defendant No. 2 failed to prove that she is a tenant in the accommodation in question. However, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11-9- 2008. 3 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent no.1-plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2008, Ajit Krishna Chaube Vs. Devi Datt Joshi and another before the District Judge, Champawat. After hearing the parties and on reappraisal of the evidence, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the accommodation in question was given to the husband of the appellant herein as licensee and not as a tenant and she (appellant herein) failed to prove that she is a tenant in the accommodation in question. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed and the order of the trial court was set aside by the impugned judgment and decree dated 25-5-2010. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant herein never preferred any appeal/revision against the finding recorded by the trial court against her on Issue No. 2 holding that she is not a tenant in the accommodation in question. The husband of the appellant herein despite service of notice never appeared before this Court, who was given the accommodation as licensee. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, only the owner of the property can grant a licence and no other person. Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 reads as under:- “52. “Licence” defined.- Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence.” 4 In the written statement, nowhere the title of the respondent no. 1-plaintiff was denied by the appellant-defendant no.2. Earlier the father of respondent no. 1 was the owner of the property and after his death, the property devolved upon the respondent no. 1 and he became the owner of the accommodation in question. The appellate Court, after re-appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the husband of the appellant was a licensee and the appellant is not a tenant. This is a finding of fact and the same cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP