1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2009. 1. Purushottam S/o. Radhakisan Lahoti, Aged about 52 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Ward No.3, Ner, Tah. Ner, District : Yavatmal. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. Smt. Kamlabai Wd/o. Hargovind Bamore, R/o. Ward No.3, Ner, Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal, presently at Karanja Lad, Distt. Washim. 2. Sau. Savita Ashok Mahajan, R/o. Karanja Lad, Distt. Washim. 3. Sau.Saroj Rajkumar Rai, R/o. Lodhikheda, Tq. Dist. Chhindwada. 4. Sau. Kavita Suresh Jaiswal, R/o. Ambajhari, Nagpur. 5. Ku. Anuradha Hargovind Bamore, R/o. Ner, District : Yavatmal. 6. Sau. Arti Amit Rai, R/o. Shahapur, Distt. Khandwa (MP). 7. Ku. Priti Hargovind Bamore, R/o. Ner, presently at Karanja, Distt. Washim. 8. Ku. Trupti Hargovind Bamore, R/o. Ner, presently at Karanja, Distt. Washim. .... RESPPONDENTS. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri M.G.Bhangde, Senior Advocate for respondents. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2009. 2 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against judgment of learned District Judge-1, Darwha, whereby he dismissed petitioner’s appeal against judgment of learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ner, decreeing respondent/ landlady’s suit for recovery of possession of the premises let out to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a permanent lease had been created by document, which is at Exh.49 and therefore, there was no question of termination of such lease by issuance of notice. The document is not a registered document and therefore, there is no question of creation of any permanent lease. This question has already been decided by this Court in earlier round of litigation. Decree of the Civil Court was challenged in the appeal and the learned appellate Judge in his first judgment dated 2nd September, 2008 had held that the story of permanent lease was not proved, but had held that the landlady failed to prove the valid termination of the tenancy. Therefore, had framed an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff had validly terminated the tenancy of the defendant in the suit shop on the basis of notice dated 25.12.1998 and had remanded the matter back to the trial Court for being decided afresh. 4. This judgment was challenged by landlord by filing A.O. 26/2009 which was decided by this Court on 21.03.2009. This Court set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge and remanded the matter back to him to decide only the issue of valid termination of tenancy. Therefore, the question of permanent lease could not be reagitated. And, in any case, a 3 permanent lease could not be created or claimed on the basis of an unregistered document. Apart from this both the Courts below have elaborately considered evidence tendered on this aspect and have in my view, rightly rejected the story of permanent lease. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the landlady had in fact transferred the property to one Ramesh Manikchand Kahate by sale deed dated 20.09.2008 i.e. during pendency of the appeal before the District Judge. Subsequent purchaser had also filed an application for impleadment in the appeal, which had been rejected by the learned trial Judge. By Civil Application No.43 of 2009 in the Appeal Against Order No.26/2009 the petitioner, had therefore, sought dismissal of the appeal itself as the right of the landlord to file an appeal did not, in his view, survive. This application was not decided and got disposed of when the appeal was decided. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/ landlady, change of hands after a suit is filed does not really affect the rights of the landlord to recover possession, and for this purpose relies on the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment in Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati, reported at AIR 2002 SC 2180, which read as under : “It has been held by this Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh V. Jai Prakash University and ors. Reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 578, that Order 22 Rule 10 provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit. It is 4 held that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of suit is devolved upon another during its pendency. It is held that such a suit may be continued with the leave of the Court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by the decree. Thus the Appellant would continue to be bound by the decree or order which has been passed in the suit, particularly when she had knowledge of the proceedings.” 7. In view of this, there is no question of the petitioner being entitled to continue on the property after termination of his tenancy simply because the landlady has transferred the property to another person. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.