1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.381 OF 2008. Vitthal Bapurao Dhanokar .vs.. Sadanand Guru Mallikarjun Swami Patharkar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 3rd October, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.P.S.Patil, Advocate for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal by a tenant against whom a decree of possession has been passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Amravati. The suit was instituted by the respondent-landlord after obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller. The learned judge of the trial court found that 15 clear days' notice of termination of tenancy has been served upon the defendant and his tenancy stands terminated. On this finding, he passed the decree for ejectment. 2 3. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and the tenancy has been rightly terminated by the respondent- landlord. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in another proceedings, the question as to whether the present respondent is the owner of the property or not has been decided i.e. in Second appeal No.413 of 2003 and he has been held not to be the the owner of the property. He submits that, therefore, a decree for ejectment should not have been passed. The submission is not correct. The suit was instituted on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant. The court is, therefore, not supposed to go into the question as to whether landlord is the owner of the house or not. The only thing that is required to be seen by the court is as to whether there is a permission in favour of the landlord and whether 15 clear days' notice has been given or not. In this case, both the courts have concurrently found that 15 clear days' notice has been given. There is a finding of the 3 Rent Controller that relationship between landlord and tenant exists and this finding in fact res- judicata. Even the findings of court of limited jurisdiction operates as res judicata. 5. The learned judge of the first appellate court has rightly observed in the judgment that the decree shall not be executed by the plaintiff- landlord until it is so confirmed by the appellate authority. In view of this, I do not find that the learned judge of the first appellate court committed any error. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc