Ndm 1 sa.168.05.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2005 Bhupal Babu Pakhare. ... APPELLANT VERSUS Bhalchandra Ganpati Chavan (Deceased) Heris: Ramchandra Ganpati Chavan and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------ Shri. C.M.Lokesh i/b G.S.Hegde and Associates for the Appellants Shri. Anilkumar Patil for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. ------------------------ CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J DATE : 11 th August, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Appellant is original plaintiff. According to him, he was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant of the Defendant in the year 1998. In September 1998, the Defendant asked him to vacate the house by the end of the month. The plaintiff refused. Thereafter, the Defendant disconnected water supply. The Plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police and filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Defendant. The Ndm 2 sa.168.05.sxw Defendant contested the suit contending that he and his family members were living in all the five rooms in the house till January, 1998. After his transfer from Kolhapur to Halkarni, he alone went to Halkarni and the family continued to live in the house. In June, 1998, all of them went to Halkarni and in his absence, his friend, namely Basual Bagewadi, started residing in two rooms. In August, 1998, the Defendant approached said Basavraj Bagewadi and demanded key of two rooms saying that the Defendant had permitted him to reside in those two rooms and thus the plaintiff took entry to the house without any authority or knowledge of the Defendant. Immediately after getting the knowledge, the Defendant asked him to vacate the house. 2 The trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The Defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1999. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 3 The learned counsel for the Appellant admits that there is not a single document to show that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant nor he has any rent receipt to show that the Defendant had ever accepted rent from him. According to him, the plaintiff had sent money order to the Defendant towards rent, but money order was not accepted by the Defendant. Taking into consideration this material, it cannot be said that Ndm 3 sa.168.05.sxw the findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse or per-se wrong. I do not find any question of law in this appeal. 4 Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 5 In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 349 of 2005 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. J.H. BHATIA, J.