1 S.A. 488/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 488/2010 Sow. Chayabai w/o Tukaram Sabne, Age : 35 years, Occu. Household, R/o Old Cloth Lane, Latur and another Appellants (Ori. plaintiffs) Versus Prakash s/o Ganpati Hulkane and others Respondents. (Orig. defendants) ..... Mr. A.V. Patil h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for appellants. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 21 st December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard ld. counsel appearing for the appellants. Ld. counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Padamraj Maruti Kondekar had sold the suit property by way of registered sale deed in the year 1959 to Sarubai d/o Baliram Vedpathak. Said Sarubai executed Will deed in favour of Ashabai. Ashabai by virtue of Will deed became owner of the suit property. The appellants herein purchased the said suit property in the year 2000 from Ashabai. The respondents herein are tenant in the suit premises i.e. house 2 S.A. 488/2010 No.116/22. Being vendor, Ashabai was holding valid title of the said property and said property has been sold by Ashabai to the appellants. The appellants are entitled to recover rent from the respondents. Therefore, he submits that the judgment and order impugned in this second appeal deserves to be interfered. The ld. counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in second appeal and submitted that second appeal deserves consideration. On the other hand, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 relied on the findings recorded by the Courts below and also outcome of R.C.S. No. 248/2000 and R.C.S. No. 250/2000, and he submits that the suit filed by the appellants herein against other tenants, are dismissed on the ground that the appellants failed to establish relationship as landlady and tenants between the plaintiffs and defendants in those suits. Therefore, according to the ld. counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, this Court can not entertain this second appeal. 2. Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court and in particular para no.14 and 15 of the said judgment, it appears that Ashabai Dixit did file R.C.S. No. 248/2000 against Prakash Ganpati Hulkane for recovery of the rent of the rented premises i.e. house No. 116/22. However, said suit came to be dismissed on 09/07/2004, thereby recording the finding that the plaintiff therein failed to establish the relationship as 3 S.A. 488/2010 landlady and tenant between the parties. From perusal of para 15 of the impugned judgment, it further appears that said Ashabai Dixit also filed R.C.S. No. 250/2000 against Vilas Pandit Gavali i.e. tenant for recovery of the rent in respect of suit premises i.e. municipal house No.116/22. In the said suit also, trial Court recorded finding that the plaintiff therein failed to establish the relationship as landlady and the tenant between the parties. Aggrieved by the said decision, Ashabai filed R.C.S. No. 134/2008 before the District Judge at Latur. However, the said appeal also failed. In the said appeal, finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff therein failed to establish or prove relationship as landlady and tenant between the parties, came to be confirmed. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the present respondent is one of the tenants in the said suit property Municipal house No. 116/22. At present, there are three tenants and the respondent is one of them. Therefore, if the suit filed by the vendor of the appellants failed on the ground that the said vendor failed to establish relationship as landlady and tenant between the parties, the present suit filed by the appellants i.e. plaintiffs before the trial Court, who have purchased the property from Ashabai, should necessarily fail. The plaintiff therein failed to establish relationship as landlady and tenant between the parties. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the suit filed by the present 4 S.A. 488/2010 appellants, should fail. From perusal of the grounds taken in second appeal, none of the grounds can be considered as substantial question of law, so as to entertin this second appeal. Therefore, second appeal is devoid of any merits. The appeal stands rejected. 3. Ld. counsel appearing for the appellants, during the course of arguments, submitted that now the appellants herein have filed Special civil suit No.225/2010 for declaration of ownership. It is needless to clarify that, in case the appellants herein succeeds in that proceeding, they would be entitled for the benefits which would be accrued if their suit is allowed. 4. Consequently, Civil Application stands disposed of. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ts k/