1 (SA304.11 with CAS807.10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.304 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.807 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.304 OF 2010 Smt. Rukmini Vithal Kulkarni & Ors. ....Appellants. V/s Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Thane (W) ....Respondent. Mr. P.N. Joshi for the appellants. Mr. D.S. Sapkale with Mr. M.D. Sapkale for Respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent. 2. Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and Respondent is 2 (SA304.11 with CAS807.10) the original Defendant. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as “Plaintiffs” and “Defendant”. 3. A suit was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant – Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran for an order of permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit property. It is the case of the Plaintiffs in the suit that they had taken permission from the competent authority for the purpose of construction of a tin shed on the suit premises and the said permission was granted by letters dated 13/2/1959 and 21/2/1959. It is the case of Plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit premises since that date and that the said permission which was given has not been revoked till today. Trial Court, however, dismissed the suit and the said order was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants invited my attention to the said documents and pointed out that since the said permission has not been revoked, Respondent cannot dispossess the Plaintiff. 5 The said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that, till today, no notice has been issued by Respondent/Defendant asking the Plaintiff to vacate the premises. Merely because permission was granted to the Plaintiff to construct the tin shed that itself 3 (SA304.11 with CAS807.10) would not create right of ownership in respect of the suit structure and, therefore, both the Courts were justified in not granting relief which was claimed by the Plaintiff. Needless to state that if Respondent wants to remove the Plaintiffs from the suit land, they cannot do so without following due process of law. Hence, no substantial question of law is raised in this second appeal. Second appeal is dismissed. 6 Since this second appeal itself is disposed of, Civil Application No.807 of 2010 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (SA304.11 with CAS807.10)