JUDGMENT : 1. This Court on 5th September, 2005 framed the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the renewal of the licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act is required to be obtained before the date of advancing of the loan ? 2. Whether subsequent renewal of licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act specifically covering under the date on which the loan was advanced is enough compliance ? 3. Whether in respect of the suit on a mortgage, licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act is required ?” 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati and confirmed by order dated 1.3.2002, passed by the 2nd Adhoc, Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 378/2000. 3. In support of the appeal Mr. V.G. Bhonsule, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is on an application to be filed for renewal thereof every year within 3 weeks after the expiry of licence. He contended that both the Courts have concurrently found that the licence Exh.36 having been issued on 28.8.1985 for the period from 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985 and the transaction of lending the money to the dependents having taken place on 14.5.1985 the Courts below could not have held that there was no money lending licence on the date of advancement of loan. According to Mr. Bhonsule, grant or renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is an official act to be performed by the concerned officers entrusted with the official duty and the applicant-appellant could not have any control in getting the licence renewed. According to him, it is a well known fact despite making application for renewal within time prescribed by law the actual issuance thereof takes its own time but then that does not mean that there is no valid licence on the date of advancement of loan. The licence Exh.36 clearly indicates that validity of the licence from 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985 whereas the advancement of loan on 14.5.1985. The reasons given by the Courts below that it was essential for the appellant to show the date on which the application for renewal of licence was submitted and upon failure thereof it was presumed that on the date of transaction namely 14.5.1985 there was no licence at all. The reasons given by the Courts below that it was essential for the appellant to show the date on which the application for renewal of licence was submitted and upon failure thereof it was presumed that on the date of transaction namely 14.5.1985 there was no licence at all. He submits, Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 speaks of only requirement of licence and nothing more, therefore, even if the licence was actually issued on a posterior date but for the period relevant in question the same would not nullify the transaction particularly when it is not a case of the respondents that the application was not made within time and no rebuttal evidence was tendered by the respondent in rebuttal to the licence Exh.36. He, therefore, submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in law causing miscarriage of justice to the appellant and therefore prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.N. Dadhe, the learned counsel for the respondents-borrower submitted that Section 100 of C.P.C. does not enable this Court to interfere into the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the two Courts and, therefore, there is no need to interfere into the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. According to him, even if a third view is possible, this Court cannot interfere in the second appellate jurisdiction. He then contended that the licence itself being issued on 28.8.1985 and the advancement of loan being made on 14.5.1985, it is crystal clear that there was no licence on the date of advancement of loan and that is the sine quo non for maintainability of the suit in the light of prohibition contained in Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and, therefore, both the Courts have rightly found that what is required is the existence of licence on the date of advancement of loan, whereas the admitted position is that the licence came into being 3 months after the advancement of loan i.e. 28.8.1985 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. 5. 5. He invited my attention to Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Rules, 1959 and submitted that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 in terms provide for a particular time limit when the application is required to be made and the burden to show that the application was made within time and was declined is on the plaintiff and that is the reason why according to Mr. Dadhe, learned counsel the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff ought to have produced the application or disclosed the date on which the application was made for renewal of licence, since that is the special knowledge of the plaintiff as to when the application was made for renewal of licence and the burden cannot be thrown on the defendants. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is required in the present appeal and should be dismissed with costs. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the entire record, so also the reasons recorded by the Courts below, I frame additional substantial question of law as under : “Whether in the light of Section 114 illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Money Lending licence at Exh.36 dated 28.8.1985 for the period from 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985 was issued pursuant to the official act regularly performed and whether the Court can presume existence of valid issuance of Exh.36 upon compliance of the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 and in particular Rule 5(2) of the Rules ? 7. For answering question Nos.1 & 2, it is necessary to reproduce Section 9 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, which reads thus : “9. Term of Licence. A license shall be valid from the date on which it is granted to the 31st day of July following: [Provided that when an application for renewal of a licence has been received by an Assistant Registrar within the prescribed period, the licence shall, until the application is finally disposed of, be deemed to be valid.]” 8. Proviso to Section 9 in terms provide for the licence to be valid after making of application for renewal and until the application is finally disposed of. The Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 reads thus : “5. Application for licence. Proviso to Section 9 in terms provide for the licence to be valid after making of application for renewal and until the application is finally disposed of. The Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 reads thus : “5. Application for licence. (1) A money lender desiring to carry on the business of money lending in any area shall make an application in Form No.2 to the Assistant Registrar concerned. The application shall be delivered at the office of the Assistant Registrar during office hours either personally by the applicant or through an agent authorised in writing in this behalf or sent by registered post addressed to the Assistant Registrar. (2) An application for the grant of a licence for the first time may be made on any date and an application for renewal of licence may be made on any date within three months prior to the expiry of the licence.” 9. It is clear from the conjoint reading of Section 9 and Rule 5 that what is required is that a money lender has to apply for licnece or for renewal and obviously it is beyond the control of the money lender to have the actual licence in his hand, since it is for the concerned competent officers to issue licence. The proviso appears to have been inserted with a view to take care of the situation where despite receipt of application within time the application remains pending and is not finally disposed of. This is obviously to stop gap of the continuity or the validity of licence. Therefore, question No.1 is answered by saying that the requirement is that the money lender is required to apply for licence or renewal of licence, but there is no requirement for him to get the licence issued. Hence, the question No.1 is answered accordingly. 10. Coming to question No.2, it is seen that this question would again fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the Act particularly its proviso. The fact that the period namely 1984-85 is mentioned in the licence Exh.36 issued on 28.8.1985 clearly validates the transaction in question that took place on 14.5.1985 and, therefore, even if renewal of licence was subsequent to advancement of loan, with the help of proviso to Section 9 the transaction is clearly protected. Hence, I answer the question No.2 in the affirmative. 11. Hence, I answer the question No.2 in the affirmative. 11. Now I take up the additional question before recording answer to question No.3. Mr. K.N. Dadhe, learned counsel for the respondents has forcefully argued that it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to produce the application for renewal of licence in order to show the date on which the application was made because the application has to be made within 3 weeks from the date of expiry of licence. For this, Mr. K.N. Dadhe has taken support of Rule 5(2) of the Rules. This is exactly the line of thinking of the two Courts below. The submission made by Mr. K.N. Dadhe is attractive but does not appeal to me. It would be appropriate to quote Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, which reads thus : “10. Stay of suits by moneylenders not holding licence. [(1) No Court shall pass a decree in favour of a moneylender in any suit to which this Act applies [including such suit pending in the Court before the commencement of the Bombay Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1975] (Mah. LXXVI of 1975) unless the Court is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was advanced, the moneylender held a valid licence, and if the court is satisfied that the moneylender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit.] (2) Nothing in this section shall affect – (a) suits in respect of loans advanced by a moneylender before the date on which this Act comes into force; [(b) the powers of a Court of Wards, or an Official Assignee, a receiver, an administrator or a Court under the provisions of the Presidency towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (III of 1909), or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (V of 1920) or any other law in force corresponding to that Act, or of a liquidator under the Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956), to realise the property of a moneylender.]” 12. Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 is a substantive provision providing for a prohibition on a Court to pass a decree in favour of money lender who does not have a valid licence. Thus, the requirement is solitary, namely, holding of a valid licence when the loan was advanced. Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 is a substantive provision providing for a prohibition on a Court to pass a decree in favour of money lender who does not have a valid licence. Thus, the requirement is solitary, namely, holding of a valid licence when the loan was advanced. Section 10 cannot be read in isolation qua Section 9 and will have to be read in juxtaex position with Section 9. Rule 5(2) on which the learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance, undoubtedly shows that the application for renewal of licence may be made on a date within 3 months prior to the expiry of the licence. It is true that the appellant did not produce the application to show the date for renewal of licence. But then in the wake of Exh.36 licnece for the relevant period covering the date of transaction namely 14.5.1985, the requirement of holding a valid licence on the date of advancement of loan provided in Section 10 is fully satisfied. This is not to say that the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 should be made redundant by this Court but then Rule 5 provides for a modality or procedure and what is substantive requirement is of holding a valid licence. Obviously Rule 5 is subordinate to Sections 9 and 10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to have a look at Exh.36 licence. Reading of this licence shows that it was issued on 28.8.1985 and the period covered therein is 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985. Needless to say that the licence was issued during the course of official business by the concerned competent officer and that is not under challenge. Therefore, it will have to be deemed that the competent officer issuing licnece must have had regard to the compliance of Rule including Rule 5(2) of the Rules. It was certainly open for the respondents-defendants to show to the contrary by producing evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, it will have to be deemed that the competent officer issuing licnece must have had regard to the compliance of Rule including Rule 5(2) of the Rules. It was certainly open for the respondents-defendants to show to the contrary by producing evidence in rebuttal. The submission that initial burden to prove that the application was made 3 months prior to the expiry of licnece, will have to be read in the context of the official duty performed by the officer issuing Exh.36, which would be an answer to this submission, that the licence Exh.36 was issued in the official course of business and the existence of the said fact will have to be presumed that it was in compliance of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Rules. 13. Section 114 and illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read thus : “Section 114 : Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (e) : That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;” 14. In my opinion taking aid of Section 114(e) and looking at Exh.36 money lending licence that was issued during the course of official business unless contrary is proved it will have to be presumed that the application for renewal contemplated by Section 5(2) must have been made in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the money lending licence Exh.36 statutorily issued under the Act and the Rules could not have been ignored by the Courts below treating the same as invalid. The submission that the date of licence is post dated i.e. 28.8.1985 renewal being for the earlier period also does not appeal to me since the licence is not under challenge nor was shown to have been vitiated by illegality or fraud or as the case may be. Therefore, giving due presumption to Exh.36 I think the Courts below have mechanically acted on the fact that the licence was issued at a later date and that the same should have been issued earlier is not contemplated by Section 10 which is a substantive provision. I, therefore, answered the additional question accordingly. 15. Therefore, giving due presumption to Exh.36 I think the Courts below have mechanically acted on the fact that the licence was issued at a later date and that the same should have been issued earlier is not contemplated by Section 10 which is a substantive provision. I, therefore, answered the additional question accordingly. 15. Taking up question No.3, I find that it is not now necessary to deal with this question in view of the answers given by me to the earlier questions. In the result, the appeal must succeed. Hence, following order is passed : ORDER (i) Second Appeal No.286/2002 is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 1.3.2002, passed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.378/2000 is set aside. (iii) There shall be decree in terms of prayer (1) of the suit. (iv) The respondents shall be at liberty to apply to the Court executing decree, for installments. (v) No order as to costs.