(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No. 520 OF 2010. Bilkisbanoo Rahimkhan and others. VERSUS Fatimabi Sk. Mehaboob and another. ________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 24.01.2011. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.S. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.82/2003, by which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.201/1994 came to be confirmed. The appellants herein are the original defendants, against whom the respondent no.1 herein filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. The appellants herein are in possession of three rooms on the ground (2) floor and two rooms on the first floor. The parties are related to each other and it was the case of the plaintiff, that since the defendants were her relatives, she has allowed them to stay in the premises on gratuitous basis. The defence taken by the defendants in their written statement was that they were paying the taxes in respect of the premises in question to the Municipal Council, and such payment was to be appropriated towards rent. The said case of the defendants was tested by the Courts below and both the Courts below have recorded a finding that no agreement of the nature as propounded by the defendants can be made out from the pleadings as well as the evidence. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded that the taxes were being intermittently paid some time by the plaintiff and some time by the defendants. The agreement of the nature propounded by the defendants was absent. Both the Courts below have also recorded a finding that the defendants are licencees on gratuitous basis, and therefore, it was not necessary to comply with Rule 13 of the Rent Control Order in the matter of seeking permission of Rent Controller before proceeding against the defendants. The last straw as it were, of the defendants that the premises in question have been declared as slum, (3) has also not been accepted by the Courts below. Considering the concurrent findings of the Courts below, in my view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the above Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the defendants /appellants herein are granted time upto 31.07.2011 to vacate the premises in question, on the appellants filing the usual undertaking in this Court within a period of 4 weeks from today. If no such undertaking is filed the plaintiff would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law for the execution of the decree. JUDGE Rgd