1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.331 OF 2010 [JIJABAI BABU UKHALE ..VS.. NOOR MOHAMMAD KHA HAJI GULAB KHA] AND SECOND APPEAL NO.333/2010 [MAROTI CHAMPAT DHURVE ..VS.. NOOR MOHAMMAD KHA HAJI GULAB KHA] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 27 /7/2010 Heard Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent. Since common questions of facts arise for determination in these two second appeals, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The appellants in both these second appeals are the original defendants. Two suits were filed by the respondent/ plaintiff on a plea that he had purchased the suit property which comprised of a room of 100 sq.ft. in each of the cases and the appellants/defendants were the licensees of the original owners and vendors from whom 2 the plaintiff had purchased the suit property. According to the plaintiff the defendants had promised to vacate the suit premises as and when the same was required by the plaintiff, but inspite of notice, the defendants failed to vacate the same and hence the suit was instituted against the defendants. The defendants filed almost identical written statements in both the suits. They pleaded that they were initially the tenants of the original landlord - Dinkar Nemade and Prakash Nemade. It was pleaded by both the defendants that the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end in the year 1984-85 when the defendants showed their hostility to the title of the original owners. According to both the defendants/ appellants they became the owners of the suit property since the year 1984-85. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit as according to them the suit was not tenable in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and the material evidence on record came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants were the licensees of the original owners. The courts then held that the defendants had not proved their title to the suit property by adverse possession. It was held by the courts that the defendants were mere trespassers in the property of the plaintiff in view of the fact that they had failed to prove their ownership over the same and the plaintiff had proved the ownership over the suit property in 3 both the cases. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. It is necessary to note on a reading of the written statements that it was not the case of the defendants that in case they are not held to be the owners of the suit property by adverse possession they may be held to be the tenants thereof. In fact they had categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that previously they were the tenants in the property and they had become the absolute owners of the same since the year 1984-85. As the defendants had failed to prove their ownership over the suit property by adverse possession, the courts rightly held that the defendants’ status was rendered as that of trespassers and the suit for possession should be decreed. Since the findings recorded by both the courts do not give rise to any substantial question of la, the second appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.