1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.1583 OF 2005 Ramnaresh Goli Maurya ..Appellant V/s. Maruti Bhiwa Godambe & anr. ..Respondents Ms.Anita Bhaktwani, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.R.S.Datar, Advocate, for respondent No.2 CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff against a Decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant of the Suit premises through defendant No.1. It was contended that defendant No.2 was 2 trying to evict him. It was also his contention that the defendants cannot evict him without following due process of law. 4. The defendants had filed Written Statement and contended that it is defendant No.1, who is the owner of the property. The plaintiff is not a tenant but he is a trespasser. The learned Judge of the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his status as a tenant. He is a trespasser and therefore, no injunction could follow against defendant No.1 and therefore, he dismissed the suit against defendant No.1 and decreed the suit against defendant No.2. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant preferred an Appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge in the Appeal filed by the appellant rejected the Appeal filed by the present appellant and had allowed the Appeal filed by the original defendant No.2. He dismissed the suit as against both the 3 defendants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant raises two grounds before the Court. She submits that first of all the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and possession of the plaintiff is not disputed. She submits that once the plaintiff is held to be in possession of the suit property, he cannot be evicted without following due process of law. Submission is not correct. The Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not a tenant and is in fact a trespasser. The trespasser is in law not entitled to any equitable relief. In the circumstances, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff being trespasser, in law is not entitled to any equitable relief. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant again submits that the Decree was rightly passed by the Trial Court against defendant 4 No.2 and it has been wrongly set aside by the Appellate Court. The submission has no force. In any case, the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction whatsoever his status being that of trespasser. The Courts below have concurrently held that it is defendant No.1, who is the owner of the property. In the circumstances, it will be defendant No.1, who has right to evict. There is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The above Second Appeal is dismissed. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.)