1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 2009. (GAJANAN SHANKARRAO INGLE...VS. SAU. PUSHPABAI MANOHARRAO KHANDAR ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Shri V.M.Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant. 2. The appellant is original defendant who has lost the suit filed against him by the original plaintiff. The original suit was for possession of the suit room given to the defendant for the purpose of staying. The said suit was decreed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the first appeal was preferred by the defendant, which was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant strongly submitted that there is law point involved to be agitated in this second appeal, inasmuch as the suit filed by the plaintiff whether permissible without grant of permission as per the provisions of the Rent Control Order, 1949. This submission was made by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the premises that in the earlier notice prior to the suit, the plaintiff had averred that the defendant was her licencee. By emphasizing on the word 2 “licencee” it is construed on behalf of the appellant that it was the licencee for payment of certain rent or compensation and it cannot be taken as gratuitous licencee. In the absence of anything brought either before the trial Court or before first appellate Court, substantiating such interpretation, it is difficult to accept this submission on behalf of the appellant. Mere using of the words as ‘defendant being licencee’, cannot be taken as licencee for payment of rent or compensation. 4. Needless to mention that the claim of the plaintiff must stand on his own pleadings, and considering this, after going through the averments in the plaint, which are read over to the Court by the learned Advocate for the appellant, there is no case of the plaintiff that the defendant was her licencee. 5. Apart from the above, it is an admitted position, as per the reasoning given in the judgment of the trial Court and of the first appellate Court that the present appellant/ defendant did not enter into the witness box and did not lead any oral evidence much less evidence to substantiate the only defence taken in the suit as that of becoming owner of the suit premises by way of adverse possession. 6. Both the earlier courts have specifically dealt with the points in controversy between the parties and hold that the plaintiff is owner of the suit premises and the defendant has no right to continue in the possession. 3 7. Considering such concurrent findings and sensing that there is no any legal point involved in the matter, there is nothing to entertain the present appeal, even at the admission stage and hence, the present second appeal is dismissed. JUDGE RR.