1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 39 of 2009 [Wasudeo Motiram Belsare Vs. Smt. Ashabee Samad Khan & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 8. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th April, 2009. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant. 2. Plaintiff s suit for possession has been decreed and decree has been confirmed in First Appeal. 3. Following Substantial Questions of Law have been framed in the Appeal Memo :- a. Whether the plaintiff can be allowed to prosecute the other remedy of Suit for Eviction of a tenant as a trespasser as he has already elected to prosecute the tenant under the provisions of the C P & Berar 2 Rent Control Order 1947? b. In a proceedings for eviction whether the plaintiff can be allowed to prosecute two remedies at the same time and then club those at the time of final disposal of the suit? And the grounds raised in the Appeal c. Whether the court had jurisdiction to allow amendment based on a judgment passed by the rent controller under the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order in the suit for eviction and wherein the capacity of occupant is that of a trespasser based on denial of title of owner. d. Whether the suit as filed was tenable in law as there was no specific denial of ownership of the plaintiff over the property in dispute, more specifically in view of allegations before Rent Controller that the applicant/plaintiff was not the absolute owner? e. Whether suit for eviction based on denial of titles is same, as against suit for eviction based on permission secured under the Rent Control Order? f. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 4. Heard learned Adv. Mr. M.M. Agnihotri for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. J.J. Chandurkar for respondent nos. 1 to 8. Perused the Judgments. 3 5. It is seen that after termination of tenancy on the grounds of denial of ownership rights, default etc., the landlord instituted suit. 6. The issue has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. Findings are not challenged on the ground of perversity. 7. It appears that at this stage, the tenant is changing the stand and resiling from the plea of denial of ownership. Any such plea was not raised before the First Appellate Court. 8. Grounds now taken in the Appeal Memo as Substantial Questions of Law do not arise in the case. 9. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|