: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.821 OF 2009 Mohammed Shafi Ghouse Shaikh .. Appellant V/s. Nebulal Gujeshwar Prasad .. Respondent ..... Mr. Suresh K. Mali for the appellant Mr. H.P. Pandey for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellant herein instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay against the respondent being S.C.Suit No.6917 of 1999 seeking possession of Pan Bidi stall i.e. the suit stall. Learned Judge of the City Civil Court by his judgment and decree dated 31 st March, 2009 dismissed the said suit against which the First Appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Mali in support of the Appeal and Mr. Pandey opposing the appeal. It : 2 : was the case of the appellant that he is the owner of the shop and his wife had permitted the respondent to run the shop on a daily payment of Rs.25/-. In order to show that the appellant was the owner of the shop, the appellant relied upon certain documents. In the cross-examination, the appellant answered against himself and the learned trial Judge in para 9 of the impugned judgment has given details of it. The evidence on record would clearly go to show that the appellant was not successful in making out the case that the appellant is the owner of the suit stall. Based on the said evidence the learned Judge has arrived at conclusion that the appellant is not the owner of the suit shop. 3. Learned Judge has also considered the evidence put up by the respondent before him and has appreciated the said evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the respondent who has been running the suit shop in his own name as of right. This is done on the basis of certain documents and those documents are well discussed in para 10 of the impugned judgment. If this is the situation, learned Judge was right in arriving at conclusion that the appellant has failed : 3 : to make out a case that the appellant was the owner of the shop and that the appellant was permitted by the respondent to be in the suit property. The respondent had placed appropriate material to show that it is he, who was entitled to the suit shop and was running the same. Learned trial Judge has rightly considered the material placed before him and has rightly negatived the claim of the appellant. Once it is observed that that appellant has failed to make out the case that he is the owner of the suit shop, learned Judge was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant for possession. 4. After having gone through the entire material placed before the learned Judge, I am inclined to observe that learned trial Judge has rightly arrived at proper conclusion and recorded proper finding, which is not required to interfere with. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and hence the first appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. : 4 : ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . Civil Application No.2329 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)