1. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Patil, learned counsel holding for Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By this Second Appeal, the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 439 of 1983 is challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below directing his eviction from suit premises. The judgments delivered are common judgments in two suits and two appeals. Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 1983 was filed by present appellant against the respondent for specific performance of contract. The present respondent (defendant No.2) in that suit filed Regular Civil Suit No. 439 of 1983 for possession along with other incidental reliefs. The suit filed by present appellant for specific performance was dismissed with costs while suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the appellant was directed to handover vacant possession. Against this judgment dated 3.5.1985 delivered by 23rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, the present appellant filed two separate appeals under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, which were registered as Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 367 of 1985 and 509 of 1985 by common judgment delivered on 8.10.1992, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter this Second Appeal has been filed. The Second Appeal has been admitted on 15.3.1993 without formulating any question as substantial question of law. However, it appears that in pursuance of earlier orders dated 10.11.2006, the appellant has filed a pursis mentioning total eight questions as substantial questions of law. During arguments, however, questions No. 3, 4 & 5 were only pressed into service as substantial questions involved. The questions are reproduced below for immediate appreciation.

3. Whether the Judgment and decree impugned in the instant appeal is without jurisdiction as the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment and possession without following the due process of law i.e. without first obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller for issuing quit notice ?

4. Whether the findings to the effect that the appellant/ tenant had renounced his character or had disclaimed his character as a tenant and that he became a trespasser are perverse ?

5. Whether assuming but not admitting that the appellant/ tenant had renounced his character as a tenant and had incurred forfeiture, the suit for ejectment and possession at the behest of the respondent/ landlord was tenable without giving a proper notice of forfeiture of tenancy as contemplated under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act?.

3. In order to show that these questions arise for consideration, Shri Purohit, learned counsel has invited attention to both plaints and respective written statements filed therein and also to the issues as formulated in Regular Civil Suit No. 439 of 1983. His contention is, the application of mind by both the Courts below while delivering common judgment has been in the background of issues as framed in Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 1983. He contends that this has seriously prejudiced the present appellant because the question whether the present respondent (original plaintiff in eviction suit) proves that the present appellant is licensee has not been gone into by any of the Courts. He for that purposes invites attention even to both the judgments as delivered and he contends that if the said issue was examined by the Courts below, they could have recorded a finding either way. He points out that a licensee like present appellant paying Rs.32/- per month is covered by the protection extended by provisions of Rent Control Order, 1949, and admittedly in present case, there is no permission obtained from the Rent Controller. He, therefore, states that suit for eviction itself coul