:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.119 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2007 Smt. Vandana Dattatraya Kolambekar & Anr....Appellants. v. Shri Pravin Tukaram Gharat & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Vijay Gharat , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.A.A.Garge , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 9th July, 2008. DATE: 9th July, 2008. DATE: 9th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The appellants are the original defendants and they are residing in one of the rooms in the house no.408 situated at Alibag. The plaintiffs/respondents claim to have purchased the house in 1996 under a registered sale deed from the owners Usha Todankar and Saroj Parmar. They got possession of the house. However, a portion of the house was in occupation of one Divakar Ghaisas as a tenant. The said Divakar had on humanitarian ground allowed her maid servant, the defendant no.1 Vandana, to occupy one room out of the tenanted premises of two rooms. Before filing of the suit, the said Divakar died and after his death, his family members surrendered the premises in favour of the :2: plaintiffs. They also requested the defendants to vacate the room, which was in occupation of the defendant no.1. Initially, they sought eight days time but thereafter they refused to vacate. In such circumstances, the suit was filed for eviction , possession and recovery of damages. The defendants contended that they are in occupation not only in one room but also varanda, bathroom and toilet. According to them, they are in occupation of house for more than 22 years on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. Rent was originally collected by Bhagirathibai and after her death, her son Sadanand used to collect the rent. After death of Sadanand, his daughters Usha Todankar and Saroj Parmar used to collect the rent but none of them had ever issued any rent receipts in their favour. The sum and substance of the defence is that they are in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant and not as a licensee of Divakar, who himself was tenant in the premises. 3. After hearing the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred by the defendants also came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Raigad at Alibag. The Courts below noted that the defendant no.1 Vandana had never entered into the witness box to depose about her claim of the tenant. Her husband is no more alive. On behalf of the defendants, only the defendant no.3 :3: Santosh, who was a young man aged about 24 years was examined as defence witness. In view of his age, he was not expected to know when his father and mother were first inducted in the suit premises. The Courts below noted that as per the municipal record, tree tax of the suit premises was being paid by Divakar and not by the defendants. There was no material on record to support the claim of the defendants that they were in occupation of the house as tenant. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the judgments rendered by the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. In the result, appeal stands dismissed summarily. 5. As the appeal itself is disposed, civil application no.313 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)