IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2007 SHRI. SYLVESTRE FERNANDES ... Appellant Versus MRS MARIA ANALIA BEVINDA SOUZA BARRETO THROUGH ATTORNEY WILLIAM JOSE BARRETO ... Respondent Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somnath Karpe, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 29th January, 2009 P.C. This second appeal is by the defendant who was unsuccessful in both the Court below. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant for possession of the suit property. It is alleged that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff's husband had created a licence in favour of the defendant's father and licence fees of Rs.35/- was agreed to be paid. The plaintiff did not want to continue the defendant as licencee, hence she issued a notice to the defendant. The defendant's father and brother sent a reply to the plaintiff's notice saying that they have already vacated the premises. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises inspite of the notice, a suit came to be filed against him. 3. The defendant contends that he was a tenant and not as licencee. 4. The Courts below held that the occupation of the defendant was a licencee and not a tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was enough material on record to hold that the defendant was a tenant. He particularly brought to my notice the observations of the Trial Court wherein it was mentioned that there are two rent receipts. After going through the observations of the Trial Court, it is seen that the learned Judge does make reference to such receipts but they by themselves do not go to show the status of the defendant as a tenant. The Courts below have held that the defendant is a licencee and not a tenant. When the Courts below have considered the evidence that the defendant is a licencee and not a tenant, I do not find any perversity in such finding. On facts, the Courts below have held that the status of the defendant is of a licencee. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the owner. In view of this fact, a decree was rightly passed by the Court below in favour of the plaintiff. Hence no substantial question of law is involved and the appeal is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.