IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2008 MR. EUSTACE ATHANASIO SEQUEIRA, PANAJI-GOA. ... Appellant Versus MRS. JIJABAI NAMDEV SATARDEKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 25th February, 2008 ORAL ORDER : Heard Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant. 2. The appellant was the defendant in RCS No. 79/97/B. The family of the respondents namely Namdev and Jijabai were the tenants in respect of the suit premises. Their son Udesh Satardekar along with the defendant, by virtue of deed of partnership, started a business in the name and style of Hysons Enterprises. The said Udesh Satardekar expired on 17/06/1996 and the suit for the eviction of the defendant came to be filed sometime in March, 1997. The learned trial Court by judgment dated 29/07/2005 decreed the suit holding that plaintiff no.1 i.e. the said Smt. Jijabai Namdev Satardekar was the sole and universal heir of her son deceased Udesh Satardekar and, as such, she was entitled to get the suit premises i.e. part identified by letter A of shop no. 47. It appears that the learned trial Court also held the partnership deed between Udesh Satardekar and the defendant had come to an end upon the death of said Udesh Satardekar. Although, the trial Court held that the said deed of partnership was executed without the consent of the other two tenants, the learned first appellate Court held, otherwise. 3. Both the Courts below have ordered the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and that is a concurrent finding given by both the Courts below. Learned Counsel submits that the defendant was a sub-tenant of the suit premises, the said sub-tenancy having been created by the said Udesh Satardekar with the consent of the other two tenants, but, I am hasten to add, such a plea is not at all reflected in the written statement filed by the defendant. Such a plea cannot be taken for the first time in the Second Appeal. I have perused the substantial questions of law formulated on behalf of the appellant/defendant. In my view, none of them arise in this Second Appeal from the pleadings and findings recorded by both the Courts below. 4. In my view, there is no merit in this Second Appeal and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant/defendant states that the eviction is fixed for tomorrow. He seeks for extension of time. Time granted of three months from today, subject to an undertaking to be filed by the appellant/defendant before the trial Court. Expedite authenticated copy. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH