: 1 : FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.122 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s . orders or directions and . Registrar’s orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for the Appellant. Mr.Prasad S. Dani for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 26TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. The contention raised in the present proceeding has been negatived more than once in the previous proceedings. The contention being that the tenancy of the suit premises vested in the Appellant’s grand-father in his personal capacity. 2. In the previous proceedings it has been established that the tenancy was that : 2 : of the partnership firm of which the Appellant’s grand-father was a partner. The Appellant admittedly has no right in the partnership firm. There is no question of the Appellant having any right in the premises per-se. 3. In the suit filed by the landlord, it was contended that the premises were tenanted to the firm. After the expiry of the Appellant’s grand-father, his heirs including the Appellant were brought on record. This aspect was not denied by the Appellant. In fact the Appellant did not file a written statement and suffered a decree. Thus the compromise arrived at between the other parties in the Writ Petition filed in this Court, cannot be challenged in these proceedings on any ground. 4. It is also pertinent to note that in the previous proceedings filed by the Appellant, the Appellant had filed Second Appeal No.662 of 2005. Even in the Second Appeal, it has been held by this Court : 3 : that the business was not that of a Hindu Joint Family but it was a partnership business. 5. The observations in this order are prima-facie and will not bind the trial Court at the hearing of the suit.