( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2688 OF 2009 Bebabai Nago Marathe APPELLANT VERSUS Adhar Dongar Marathe & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.P. Dhorde, advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.R. Sancheti, advocate holding for Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Dhorde for the appellant. Mr. R.R. Sancheti, holding for Mr. Mantri, sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Mantri has gone out of station. The request for adjournment is rejected. 2. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below to the effect that the appellant is ( 2 ) licensee in respect of the suit premises. It is pertinent to notice that the appellant is related to the respondents. The appellant was unable to prove her tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. The contention of the appellant was that about 40 years prior, she took the premises on rent at rate of Rs. 5/- p.m. from Shankar s/o Vedu. There was no receipt about the payment of rent nor her status as tenant was recorded in the Property Tax register or in any other public document. The Court below has found that because the appellant is step-niece of deceased Shankar S/o Vedu, she was allowed to reside in the premises because of her difficulties and as she is widow. The second appeal is outside the pale of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in as much as no substantial question of law is involved. There appears no material to infer that both the Courts below committed perversity in recording the finding of fact about absence of status of the appellant as tenant of Shankar s/o Vedu and the continuation of such status in relation to the respondents. In view of “Arumugham (dead by L.Rs.) and ( 3 ) others v. Sundrambal and another” (AIR 1999 S.C. 2216) and “Kashmir Sing v. Harnam Sing and another” (AIR 2008 S.C. 1749, the second appeal is untenable and as such is liable to be dismissed. 3. At request of learned counsel Mr. Dhorde, on equitable grounds, the appellant is, however, granted six (6) months’ time to vacate the premises in question. The second appeal is dismissed. During the period of interim relief granted in her favour and for period of six (6) months, she will not be liable to pay any compensation the amount if she will not commit any act of nuisance in respect of the suit premises. The civil application No. 2688/2009 is accordingly dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa162-09