-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.26631 OF 2007 APPEAL ST.NO.26631 OF 2007 APPEAL ST.NO.26631 OF 2007 Shashikant Bajrang Pawar ...Appellant vs. Pandharpur Nagar Palika & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Appellant Mr.Sarang Aradhye for Respondent No.1 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2008 : FEBRUARY 29, 2008 : FEBRUARY 29, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned Advocate for the first Respondent. The Appellant is the original defendant No.2 in a suit filed by the first Respondent. 2. According to the case of the first Respondent, there is a shopping centre at Pandharpur owned by the first Respondent. According to the case of the first Respondent a shop in the said shopping centre was let out by the first Respondent to the second Respondent. The contention of the first Respondent is that under the provisions of the statute, period of tenancy could have been maximum three years. The case made out by the first Respondent is that the second respondent unauthorizedly handed over the possession of the suit shop to the Appellant. Therefore, a suit for possession was filed by the first Respondent. The suit was contested by the second Respondent -2- as well as by the Appellant. The Appellant relied upon the agreement dated 31st May 1990 executed by the second Respondent in his favour by which the second respondent agreed to transfer the shop to the Appellant. 3. The trial court decreed the suit by holding that the second Respondent unauthorizedly inducted the Appellant in the suit shop. An Appeal preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed. 4. After having heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant I find that no substantial question of law arises. According to the case of the first Respondent the suit shop was let out to the second Respondent. It is obvious that the second Respondent had no right to induct the Appellant in the suit shop. The courts below have rightly found that the possession of the Appellant to be unauthorised. 5. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the Appellant states that if this court is inclined to dismissed the Appeal, the Appellant may be permitted to apply to the first Respondent for regularisation of possession of the Appellant over the suit shop. He states that a reasonable time may be granted in that behalf. The Advocate for the first Respondent states that he has no instructions. -3- 6. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii) If the Appellant makes an application to the first Respondent for regularisation of his possession over the suit shop within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the first Respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. iii) Decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of three months from today subject to condition that the Appellant will not create any third party interests and will not part with possession of the suit shop. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE