IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2007 Mr.Manik Devaji Mhatre. ... Appellant. V/s. Shri Gopinath Krishna Thakur and another. ... Respondents. G.H.Keluskar for the appellant. Pankaj Das i/b. R.S.Datar for respondent No.1. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 24th September 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This second appeal is filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. I was taken through order of the Trial Court as well as that of lower appellate Court. After having gone through the same, it is difficult to hold that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are perverse. No fault can be found with the appreciation of evidence. A finding of fact has been recorded that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued, if the case of the plaintiff was that of tenancy. So far as defence of the defendant under the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, that is also well-founded. 3. Under these circumstance, no case is made out to entertain this second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. Appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA J.)