1 SA496/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2010 Kisan s/o Sitaram Nannaware (died) L.Rs. Thakubai Kisanrao Nannaware & Ors. Appellants V E R S U S Morish Albert D’Souza and others Respondents Shri B.N. Palve, Advocate for the appellants Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17th August, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This second appeal challenges the Judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Adhoc District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 181 of 2001, whereby he decreed the respondents’ suit for possession. The respondents’ case was that the suit land was licensed to the appellants’ father, on which he erected his hut. The respondents then stated that they terminated the license and demanded possession, but in vain. The appellants though defended the case saying that they occupied the suit land as tenants, the Courts below however concurrently held that they did not occupy the suit land as tenant, but as licensees. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit only because there was no specific notice terminating the licence, but the learned Judge of the first appeal Court rightly held that a notice in writing for termination of the license was not needed. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 2. At this second appeal stage, for the first time, the appellants’ Advocate 2 SA496/10 is trying to take defence on the basis of Section 60 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. Section 60 of the said Act, reads as under : “60. License when revocable – A license may be revoked by the grantor, unless - (a) it is coupled with the transfer of property and such transfer is in force; (b) the licensee, acting upon the license, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution.” 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants asserts that the appellants have permanent structures raised on the suit piece of land, and therefore, the license granted in their father’s favour in respect of the land, cannot be terminated. This stand was not taken when the case was before the trial Court. The appellants did not state in their written statement or in their evidence that after land was licensed to their father, their father or subsequently they, erected permanent structure incurring expenses on it. This was never their case, so a new plea cannot be raised at this stage. The second appeal should therefore fail. There is no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Second Appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, C.A. No. 6428 of 2006 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/sa/496/10/17/8/11 3 SA496/10