1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 279/2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande,J DATE : 16th August, 2006 Heard Shri M.P. M. Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and decree dated 21st April, 2004 passed by the First Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2003 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 29th November 2002 passed in Regular Civil suit no. 120/94 by Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Bhandara. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit filed against the respondents seeking relief of injunction against the respondents. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit plot was given on lease to him by respondent no.1 for a period of three years ending on 31.3.1994 and even thereafter the respondent no.1 accepted the rent from the appellant and, therefore, the lease stood renewed automatically for further period. The trial Court held that without sanction of the Government, 2 the defendant no.1 had no authority to renew the lease and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right in respect of the suit plot. The appellate Court concurred with the finding given by the trial court and also held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff had not joined the State of Maharashtra although the plaintiff had challenged the notice issued by the respondent no.2 i. e. The Tahsildar, Bhandara. Mr. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts have erred in law in holding that the lease of the appellant did not stand renewed. He further submitted that the appellate Court, in the absence of any ground being urged, could not have held that the suit against the defendant no.2 was not maintainable since the State of Maharashtra was not joined as party. I do not find any merit in the submission made by Mr. Pillai. Both the courts below were justified in holding that the lease granted in favour of the appellant did not stand renewed in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. The finding of the appellate Court that the suit filed against the Tahsildar was bad since State of Maharashtra not joined as party cannot also be faulted and since it was a pure question of law the same could have been decided by the appellate 3 court.. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Pillai and having perused the judgments passed by both the courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere in the second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. Judge patle