1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 572 of 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1431 of 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 572 of 2008 Nandkumar Narayan Gore Through his PA holder Anvar Mohiddin Peje ....Appellant v/s. Janardan Shivram Paranjape ....Respondents Shri Rakesh Bhatkar for the appellant. Shri Arfan Sait for respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- September 10, 2009. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Appellant is that the arrangement agreed between the parties was one of irrevocable license and for that reason provisions of Section 60b invoked by the Courts below have no application. This argument clearly overlooks the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below. The Courts below have found as of fact that there was no written agreement. Besides, the nature of arrangement arrived at between the parties was that the 2 defendant was allowed to occupy the premises by way of permissive user in his capacity like Manager. That is a finding of fact. On this finding, the argument that the arrangement between the parties was one of irrevocable license cannot be countenanced. Counsel for the Appellant was at pains to rely on the evidence of the defendant which according to him admits the fact that the arrangement was irrevocable license. However, it is not possible to entertain this submission. No such admission can be discerned from the cross- examination which was read out before the Court. Be that as it may, since the controversy revolves around question of fact and does not raise any substantial question of law, no interference is warranted. Hence, dismissed. 3. In view of this order, nothing survives in the companion Application, the same is also rejected. 4. At this stage, Counsel for the Appellant submits that possession of the Appellant be protected for sometime to enable the Appellant to carry the matter in appeal. 5. Although this prayer is opposed by the Counsel for the Respondents, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the decree shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from today. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)