IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.252 OF 20079 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1550 OF 2003 Mohamed Zade Barkat Khand and Ors. ... Appellants v/s Kotecha Investment Corporation ... Respondent Mr. A.N. Maniyar for the Appellants. Mr. N.B. Shah i/by Mr.H.V. Chande for the Respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Challenge is to the order dated 2nd May, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has opined that findings of facts recorded by the lower courts do not call for any interference. It is specifically observed that the appellants have no legally recognisable relationship with the tenant. For that reason, the appellants cannot claim that the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises have devolved upon them by virtue of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of Bombay Rent Act, 1947. 2. Significantly, even the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants before us in all fairness submits that the above said finding reached by the Courts below is unquestionable. However according to him, a suit is pending in this court in relation to the suit premises, in which the appellants have asserted that they have been inducted in the suit premises by the original owner of the property. 3. In the present action, we are not concerned with the stand taken by the Appellants in some other proceedings. Those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. In the present appeal, the only question is: whether the appellant can claim to be related to deceased Dauthshah ? That plea has already been concurrently answered by the Courts below against the Appellants. 4. We see no reason to interfere. Dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.