Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no substance in the appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, as required under Section 100 ibid and hence, it must merit dismissal in limine. It arises out of judgment/ decree dated 1-4-2003, passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Mandsour in C. A. No. 31-A of 1998, which in turn arises out of the Civil Suit No. 529-A of 1996, decided by learned IIIrd Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsour, on 16-3-1998. ( 2. ) IT is an appeal filed by defendant who has, suffered decree for possession in respect of suit accommodation from the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. He has now come up in second appeal against the concurrent decisions rendered against him. ( 3. ) IN my opinion, no flaw can be found in the impugned judgment under appeal as it does not call for any interference. Indeed, the defendant has no defence to defend the possession over the suit land against the plaintiff who has been able to prove his title over the suit accommodation better than the defendant. In order to defend possession, it is necessary for the defendant to show that in what capacity he is retaining the suit accommodation. It can be either as owner or lessee or licensee or by adverse possession. In this case, plaintiff sued defendant as his licensee. It was proved and accordingly, after termination of licence, the possession was demanded. The defendant was unable to defend his possession on any plausible defence. The parties being closely related to each other, the defendant was simply held occupying the suit house (one room of house) as licensee and/or permissive possession. Once it is terminated, he has to quit. This is what has happened in this case in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in Courts below. I fully concur with the finding of the two Courts below and dismiss the appeal. ( 4. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. Once it is terminated, he has to quit. This is what has happened in this case in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in Courts below. I fully concur with the finding of the two Courts below and dismiss the appeal. ( 4. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. However, taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that defendant has been in possession, I grant appellant/defendant three months time to vacate the suit accommodation from the date of this judgment, provided appellant deposit entire arrears of rent together with the cost, if awarded within two weeks from the date of this judgment. The appellant shall also deposit three months rent in advance by way of damages for use and occupation within fifteen days and shall further submit an undertaking before the Executing Court duly supported by an affidavit that he shall vacate the suit accommodation on the expiry of three months from the date of this judgment. In case, if appellant complies with these conditions, the respondent will not execute the decree upto three months. Failure to comply, will entitle the respondent to execute the decree. No costs. C. C. within a week.