( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2008 Hasmadram s/o Takhatmal Sindhi APPELLANT VERSUS Chiragoddin Shaikh Mohammad Since deceased, by L.Rs. Hisamaddin Chiragoddin Shaikh and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. J.R. Shah, advocate for the appellants. Smt. Sabahat Kazi, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The second appeal is preferred against the concurrent judgements of the Courts below. The suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1/1993 came to be decreed. The case of the respondents was that the suit property bearing Gram Panchayat House No. 685 is owned by them. The appellant ( 2 ) was tenant. The monthly rent agreed was Rs. 4 p.m. The tenancy month allegedly commenced from first day of each calender month. The tenancy was determined as the appellant No. 1 committed defaults in payment of the rent. The appellant No. 1 did not comply with the notice dated 30-10-1992. Consequently, the suit was laid. The case of the appellant was that he had obtained the suit house property from original defendant No. 2 Shaikh Gulab and, therefore, he was not the tenant of the plaintiffs. He alleged that the plaintiffs had no right to claim arrears of the rent and the tenancy could not be determined by virtue of the notice in question. Both the Courts rejected the defence of the appellant No. 1. The findings of fact are rendered after full-fledged trial. It is to be noted that the earlier suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 81/1991 was decided and, therefore, the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant could not be disputed. Considering the findings of fact and the fact that provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act are not applicable to the present case, there appears no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. ( 3 ) Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, civil application No. 6452/2008 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa422-08