1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.272 OF 2006. Maroti Jagobaji Karamore ..vs... Shriram Mandir Deosthan Arvi (Chooti), through Trustee President ShriGopal Zade and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED: 2nd September, 2009. Heard Mr.G.G.Modak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.L.Khapre, learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal is preferred by original defendant no.3. Respondent no.1 Shriram Mandir Deosthan, Arvi had filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. The suit property is an agricultural land. Defendant no.3 claimed to be in possession of the property as licensee. The contention of the defendant no.3 that he was licencee was rejected by the courts below and decree for ejectment came to be passed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 2 decree could not have been passed against the present appellant since there was no notice to the appellant revoking his licence before institution of the suit. Since such a notice was not given, the decree could not have been passed. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, I find that a notice is not required to be issued before the licence is revoked and institution of suit is itself revocation of the licence. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of this, there is no substantial question of law involved in this matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute