1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1095 of 2008 [B.N. Sharma & ors. Vs. Smt. P.P. Joshi & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Kadukar, Advocate for petitioners. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th March,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The Petitioners were tenants of an open plot on the basis of a Lease-Deed granted for carrying on the business of fabrication with liberty to raise required structure with the prior permission of the Municipal Authorities. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have raised a structure without securing prior permission. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have suffered the decree towards arrears of rent, apart from the amount sought in the decree, subject-matter. 4. Eviction was sought after due notice of termination of lease on two grounds, namely [1] breach of conditions and in specific Term No.4 about raising the structure without prior 2 permission, and [2] failure to pay the rent, i.e., the default. 5. The suit was decreed by the Court of Small Causes, which decree is confirmed by the First Appellate Court by answering both the issues in favour of plaintiffs. 6. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court before this Court on the grounds, namely:- [1] though the structure was raised without prior permission, objection was raised by the Nagpur Improvement Trust way back in 1993 and, therefore, said ground was not available, and [2] Nagpur Improvement Trust is a necessary party and the suit ought not to have proceeded in absence thereof. 7. Question is not as to when the structure was raised. The question rather is whether while raising the structure, it was done without obtaining prior permission of the Competent Authority. This issue has been answered in affirmative, holding that condition contained in Lease-Deed was violated. 8. In so far as the objection as to Nagpur 3 Improvement Trust being a party is concerned, it is obvious that in a suit between the tenant and landlord, the Local Authority, such as Nagpur Improvement Trust, who has objected to construction, is not a necessary party. The Nagpur Improvement Trust's action was not, in any manner, a subject matter of controversy. 9. In these premises, the concurrent finding of fact, though challenged on above mentioned grounds, is not shown to be perverse or without considering any material or evidence on record. 10. Therefore, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge |Hedau|