1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 361 OF 2009 Mrs.Laxmibai Hiru Takke & ors. ... Applicants v/s Anand Kamal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the applicants. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/by J.S.Deo for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3RD DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. 2. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have held that one Hiru Sadashiv Takke, from whom the applicants claim tenancy, was a gratuitous licensee of the premises. They have also held that, after the death of Hiru 2 Takke, the license came to an end and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to evict the applicants. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that Hiru Takke had purchased the property in the year 1961 and documents were brought on record to indicate that the applicants were occupying the premises since 1961. Both the Courts below have held that there was no document produced on record by the applicants indicating the purchase of the suit premises and, therefore, have disbelieved this contention. 4. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the contention of the plaintiffs that Hiru Takke entered into the suit premises only in the year 1983 is belied by the documents produced by the applicants before the Trial Court which indicate their residence from 1961 in the suit premises. Both the Courts below have relied on a declaration which was signed by Hiru Takke indicating that he was allotted the suit premises on account of his employment with the society as a gardener. The Appellate Court has found that despite the contention of the applicants that the declaration was forged and fabricated, no attempts were made by the applicants to substantiate the same. 3 5. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. 6. Civil revision application stands dismissed. 7. The plaintiff shall not execute the decree for eviction for a period of six months from today on the usual undertaking being given by the applicants and by all other adult persons living in the suit premises within two weeks from today. ..... 4