1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.114/2011 LILADHAR RAMBHAU BHONDE ..VS.. MANORAMABAI WD/O LATE RAMBHAU NICHAT AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.P.Kshirsagar, advocate for appellant Shri S.S. Murthy, advocate for respondent no.1 to 8 Shri P.N. Kothari, advocate for respondent no.9. CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 22.12.2011. Heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the appellant. He raised following points: 1] He has filed Civil Application No.1141/2011 for permission to produce on record the government resolution dated 15.4.1979 which extends protection to authorised occupant and admittedly appellant falls within the meaning of legal heir through eldest daughter of Rambhau – Plaintiff, hence this application should be allowed. 2] The payments of installments, made after the initial payments, were made by 2 the appellant only and that is why he has produced all the receipts about the payments of installments for the entire amount paid to MHADA. Hence appellant becomes the owner of the suit property and cannot be evicted. 3] The appellant received charge sheet from MHADA and in fact he defended the charge sheet on behalf of Rambhau, but then fact remains that there was a charge sheet in respect of the suit property and in the light of the judgment of this court reported in 2002(Supp.) Bom C.R.573[Dr. Vithal Kundalik Kohale ..vs.. Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Others], suit before the civil court was not maintainable and therefore, court below ought to have dismissed the suit. 3] The appellant being in occupation of the property for long number of years and having made payments no decree could be passed against the appellant by civil 3 court. Per contra, Mr. Murthy and Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that there is no substantial question of law involved. According to them the questions of facts are involved and they have been dealt with in accordance with the evidence and facts available on record and therefore this court cannot interfere in the second appellate jurisdiction. In fact, G.R. filed with Civil application No.1141/2011 was filed before the courts below still the said resolution does not show any protection in any manner whatsoever to the appellant. Hence the civil application is liable to be rejected. There is concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts that the installments were always paid in the name of plaintiff/ Rambhau. It is not possible to accept even if it is assumed that 4 actual payments had passed through the pocket of the appellant, that he became the owner when Rambhau was the allottee. There is concurrent finding showing that the appellant cannot in law have any right even assuming that he had made any payment since original allottee is Rambhau, his father-in-law. It is not in dispute that Rambhau was the original allottee and he continued to be so. In that view of the matter there is no semblance of right which is made out in favour of the appellant/ Liladhar, since he was never allotted nor was ever considered for allotment of the suit house by MHADA. The judgment cited before me is not applicable because the charge sheet was issued in the name of plaintiff- Rambhau. Even if Rambhau had defended the charge sheet through Liladhar that by itself cannot make out a ground to assume that charge sheet was issued to Liladhar. Charge sheet could not have 5 been issued to Liladhar, when he was not concerned with MHADA and was not even allottee. He was merely acting for Rambhau even in that case. The maintainability of the suit is not affected in the above factual background. Merely because appellant is occupant of the house due to induction by Rambhau as his daughter was married to the appellant, the appellant does not get any right in law and that is a finding of fact recorded by the courts below. To sum up there is no question of law involved. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no costs. JUDGE SMP