1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2009 Bhalchandra Shankar Narvane ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2009 International Automobile ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2009 Sou.Archana Ajit Gandhi ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 415 OF 2009 Nishikant Ganpat Satam ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2009 M/s.Abhinav Vastu Bhandar ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent 2 ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2009 Manager, Ghadge Patil Transport Co. ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2009 Manager, Samrat Trading Co. ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2009 Proprietor, Ratna Enterprises ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.432 OF 2009 Jayashri Marin Service ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2009 Proprietor, Autodeal Corpn. ... Appellant v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad ... Respondent 3 ALONG WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2010 Prasanna V. Gandhi & anr. ... Appellants v/s Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri ... Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole i/by Mr. Sujit Shinde & Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar for the appellants. None present for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. The second appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. 2. A notice terminating the tenancy of the appellants in these appeals was issued on 20.11.1998 by the respondent Nagar Parishad. The Nagar Parishad then filed suits against the appellants. These suits were decreed and the appellants were directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within 30 days from the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants preferred appeals before the District Court, Ratnagiri. 4 The appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 29.6.2009. The Appellate Court confirmed the decision of the Trial Court and held that the respondent Nagar Parishad was entitled to recover the vacant possession of the suit premises from the appellants. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the resolution had been passed by the Nagar Parishad on 16.11.2005 which was produced before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has unfortunately not considered the same. He further submits that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v/s Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & anr., reported in A.I.R. 2004 SC 1815, the respondents cannot indulge in rack-renting, profiteering and indulging in whimsical or unreasonable evictions or bargains. 4. In my opinion, both the Courts below have given cogent reasons for declaring that the tenancies have been validly terminated. In these circumstances, the Courts below have consequently held that the appellants cannot continue in the suit premises. 5. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in 5 these second appeals requiring interference from this Court. The Courts below have concurrently held that the appellants must be evicted and, therefore, there is no need to entertain these appeals. 6. All the second appeals stand dismissed along with the respective civil applications. ..... 6