M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE Trial Court in this case has passed a decree where under, the appellant was directed to restore possession of the disputed premises and to pay up the arrears that are accrued at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Against that decree, the present appeal has been filed and the decree has so far not been given effect to by virtue of the interim orders obtained from this court. It also transpires that no payments have been made in satisfaction of that decree. For a variety of reasons, the appeal has been lingering since the year 1993 and has not even come up for admission. The respondent's learned Advocate took out an i. A. pointing out the state of affairs and asking for appropriate orders whereupon, the office was directed to place the appeal for admission. ( 3 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate has argued at some length and has also drawn my attention to certain relevant portions of the record of the Lower Court. This is a transaction which dates back prior to the year 1981. The respondent-plaintiff who is an Advocate by profession, states that he had engaged the service of three persons to carry out certain repairs and thereafter, since they requested him to allow them to use a small part of the premises, that he did so purely out of humanitarian considerations because, they were unemployed young persons. The dispute is in relation to one of the three and the plaintiffs case is that he had continued in occupation and that he had agreed to pay a licence fee of Rs. 200a per month which also he defaulted in doing and that consequently, in view of certain unfortunate developments which took place, the plaintiff was required to approach the Court and prayed for a decree for possession. ( 4 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate has relied on the evidence of the plaintiff himself. He points out to me that this evidence indicates that the plaintiff has entered into a lease agreement with regard to the other half of the disputed premises and that this arrangement took place at about the same time when the present appellant was permitted to do his business from that place. He points out to me that this evidence indicates that the plaintiff has entered into a lease agreement with regard to the other half of the disputed premises and that this arrangement took place at about the same time when the present appellant was permitted to do his business from that place. He submits that as is common, no formal lease deed or tenancy agreement was entered into, but this Court must take cognizance of certain circumstances in the case which will unmistakably establish that the appellant was not a mere licensee. In the first instance, the learned Advocate points out that the possession is established over a period of time and that the appellant is still in possession. He also relies on the fact that there is supportive material in the form of electricity bills, telephone bills and several other documents to show that the appellant has been continuously in possession. He submits that this Court must take judicial notice of the probabilities of the case and of malpractices that are prevalent in situations such as this. He submits that it is inconceivable that the plaintiff would have permitted him to occupy the premises in the first instance and to continue in occupation thereof unless there was sufficient monetary payment being received by him. It is his case that the plaintiff has thereafter, for reasons best known to himself, decided that he would like to get rid of the appellant and has thereafter, started litigation, but that if the material on record unmistakably establishes that the appellant has certain rights, that he is deemed to have acquired certain possession in law, that this Court will have to interfere with the decision of the learned trial Judge. ( 5 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate has relied on the record for purposes of factually establishing possession over a period of time and he also submits, that there is material on record to indicate that it is the appellant's contention that he has been making payments for which no receipts have been given. He also submits, that in law if these factors are established and if he can also demonstrate exclusive possession over this long period of time, that then the finding of the learned trial Judge that he was a licensee simpliciter is liable to be reconsidered. He also submits, that in law if these factors are established and if he can also demonstrate exclusive possession over this long period of time, that then the finding of the learned trial Judge that he was a licensee simpliciter is liable to be reconsidered. The admission of the appeal is opposed on behalf of the respondent who has sought to support the judgment in question. ( 6 ) THIS is a case in which the plaintiff has come to Court with a simple clear-cut grievance that the respondent, who at the highest was his licensee, has not performed his obligations by paying even the paltry licence fee of Rs. 200/- per month and that, in any event, the licence having been terminated, that the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of possession. The law on the point is very clear insofar as if the premises belong to the plaintiff and if it is his case that a licence was created, that the terms of the licence have been breached and that irrespective of this, he has terminated the licence, he would be straight away entitled to a decree unless the defendant can establish better rights. For this purpose, the onus of proof shifts to the defendant and it is not enough to merely demonstrate that the defendant has been in possession or for that matter, to merely allege that certain payments have been given and no receipts have been obtained therefor. A Court will test such a version and having regard to the circumstances of a case such as the present one, one of the significant tests that would be applied is as to whether the defendant has, at any time, placed on record the fact that a lease was created and that despite this, it has wrongly been treated as a licence or whether he has taken any legal steps to safeguard his rights or to establish his possession in a situation whereunder, the lessee is alleged to have collected amounts every month regularly without either acknowledging them or giving any receipts therefor. I find that there is a complete void as far as this area of evidence is concerned. I find that there is a complete void as far as this area of evidence is concerned. Apart from this, I find that it is inconceivable to accept, particularly in the hostile background of the present case, that the appellant would have kept quiet for over a decade when his right security were endangered, if in fact, the legal position were anything other than that of a mere licensee. ( 7 ) REGARDLESS of those aspects of the matter, the learned trial Judge was fully justified in having passed a decree insofar as the defendant before the Civil Court has failed to discharge the burden that was cast on him. As indicated by me earlier, if the defendant desired to resist the passing of a decree, it was obligatory for him to have demonstrated that his status was something other than that of a licensee and that the law gave him special rights or protection. This has not been done and in the absence thereof, the passing of the decree cannot be faulted. A licensee continuing to be in wrongful possession and in the absence of his being able to demonstrate even a single payment having been made by him, the situation gets grossly aggravated. I also need to take cognizance of the fact that even after the passing of the decree, the decretal amount has not been paid and the appeal has been filed and nothing has been done even thereafter. ( 8 ) UNDER these circumstances, to my mind, even the entertainment of this appeal would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice. On merits, there is absolutely no substance in the appeal. The order passed by the learned trial judge is faultless both on facts and in law and therefore, requires no interference with. ( 9 ) IN the course of the hearing, the respondent's learned Advocate demonstrated to me that not only have the terms of the decree not been complied with, but that certain other steps have been taken to complicate the matter. That unfortunately is not within the province of this Court, save and except, that this court having confirmed the decree of the Trial Court can certainly direct that as far as the execution of the decree is concerned, that the amount recoverable under that decree from the appellant would stand enhanced at the rate of Rs. That unfortunately is not within the province of this Court, save and except, that this court having confirmed the decree of the Trial Court can certainly direct that as far as the execution of the decree is concerned, that the amount recoverable under that decree from the appellant would stand enhanced at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month up to the date on which the possession is restored or the possession is taken over by execution of the decree. The appeal accordingly fails and stands disposed of. --- *** --- .