1 49sa1414­04 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2004 Dnyaneshwar Ganpat Tathe & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Ajij Habib Bhayani .. Respondent ..... Mr. P. B. Shah for the appellants. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for the respondent. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The challenge by the appellants is to the decree passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal preferred by the present appellants. The present appellants are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the first respondent is the plaintiff. The suit filed by the first respondent was partly decreed. The Appellate Court has modified the decree passed by the trial Court. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the appellants never accepted the status of the first respondent­ plaintiff as a tenant and, therefore, direction issued by the Appellate Court permitting the first respondent to carry out repairs by invoking Section 23 of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947 is illegal. He submitted that there is no such relief prayed for in the plaint. He submitted 2 49sa1414­04 that without recording a finding that the first respondent was the tenant, such a direction could not have been issued. 2. I have perused the impugned Judgment. In paragraph No.13 of the Judgment, the learned district Judge on the basis of the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties has recorded the points on which both the parties agreed. The agreed points are noted in Clause Nos.1 to 18 of paragraph No. 13 of the Judgment. Clause No.1 thereof records that the first respondent was the tenant. The direction issued in the decree permitting the first respondent to invoke Section 23 of the said Act, 1947 is not at all inconsistent with the agreed position recorded by the learned district Judge in the Judgment. In paragraph No.14 of the Judgment clearly indicates that what is set out in paragraph No.13 is on the basis of the position agreed between the parties as reflected from the submissions made before the learned District Judge. 3. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. Civil Application No.1867 of 2004 does not survive and the same is disposed of. . (A.S.OKA, J.)