: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2008 Mahendra R. Sawant ....Petitioner V/s. Mahesh R. Mehta ....Respondent Mr.K.P. Tiwari i/b M/s.K.P. Tiwari & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the lower Courts. Both the Courts have, if I may say with great respect to the learned Judges, analysed the entire evidence in considerable detail and supported their conclusion with well reasoned judgments. I am unable to add anything usefully to them. 2. It was contended before me that in view of Section 15-A, the Petitioner is a protected licensee. Judgments were cited to establish that if a licence was created prior to 1.2.1973 even by the tenant, the Petitioner is entitled to protection. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law. It is : 2 : unnecessary therefore to refer to the judgments. 3. Both the Courts below have upon analysing the entire evidence come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had not established the case on facts. 4. It is important to note that Defendant No.7 is the father-in-law of the Petitioner who allegedly created a licence in favour of the Petitioner. It is also interesting to note that Defendant No.7 filed a written statement confirming the case of the Petitioner. Curiously Defendant No.7 had surrendered his tenancy rights thereafter but now contends that he had created a licence in favour of the Petitioner. This aspect has been established by the Respondent’s witness. This was not even disputed by the Plaintiff. His case, which he failed to establish, is that the surrender was on the condition that the landlord would create a tenancy in his favour. He produced no evidence to establish this case. It is pertinent to note that the aspect regarding surrender of the tenancy was suppressed in the plaint. It appears that Defendant No.7 after having surrendered the tenancy for whatever reason subsequently sought to support the Petitioner’s case of having created a licence in his favour in respect of the suit premises. : 3 : 5. Both the lower Courts have found that the Petitioner has not even established the terms of the alleged licence or the manner in which it was created. The rent receipts were in the name of Defendant No.7. The Petitioner has not established his case that he paid the rent to the landlord on behalf of Defendant No.7. The Petitioner was unable to even establish that Defendant No.7 had left the premises and was residing in Colaba prior to 1.2.1973. The Petitioner was therefore unable to even establish that he was placed in exclusive possession as a licensee by Defendant No.7. 6. It was contended that when the MHADA allotted the alternate accommodation it did so in favour of the Petitioner. 7. However, no document or proof of any nature has been adduced to establish the same. 8. Both the lower Courts have also indicated inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s case regarding the creation of the alleged licence. 9. There is nothing in the judgments of both the lower Courts which warrant any interference with the findings of fact in this Civil Revision Application. : 4 : 10. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.