1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.602 OF 2010 Vishnu B.Ghadi .. Applicant V/s Balkrishna S.Wayangankar .. Respondent Mr.H.R.Sharma for the Applicant. Mr.Rupesh R.Jaiswal for the Respondent. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 18th November, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who is the original Defendant. Respondent filed suit against the applicant under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Act, 1882 by contending that the applicant was a gratuitous licensee. Suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree of the trial Court has been confirmed in an appeal. Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the applicant was a gratuitous licensee of the Respondent. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a deemed tenant under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. When he was called upon to show from the deposition of the applicant as to whether a case was made out by the applicant that he was in occupation of the suit premises on 1st February, 1973 under a subsisting licence, he is unable to point out any such specific sentence in the deposition. He, however, submits that the 2 Respondent-plaintiff has accepted that the applicant was in possession and there is evidence on record to show that the applicant was in possession of the suit premises from the year 1972. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The case made out in this Court that the applicant is protected under section 15A of the said Act, was not made out by the applicant before the trial Court. The licensee covered under Section 15A of the said Act is a licensee as defined by sub-section 4A of Section 5 of the said Act. The licence contemplated by sub-section 4A has to be a licence for fee or charge. In fact before the trial Court, a case was made out by the applicant that he was a protected sub-tenant. No case was made out that he was a licensee in possession as on 1st February, 1973. The case of the Respondent that the applicant was a gratuitous licensee has been accepted by the appellate Court. 4. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision Application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)