(SA 257 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 690 OF 2011 Smt.Edna Sushila Samuel ...Appellant Vs. Waman Krishna Galande (since deceased through LRs) Sushila Wamanrao Galande ...Respondent ----- Mr.S.G. Karandikar h/f. Mr.Drupad S. Patil for Appellant Mr.S.A. Sawant and Mr. A.P. Botre and Mrs. Gunjan Shah for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent. 2. The Appellant is the Original -Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Original-Defendant (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiff and the Defendant”). 3. Brief facts are that the Plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the Defendant. It was contended that he is in possession of the suit property. It was contended that he is a tenant of the suit premised. It was also contended that the Respondent had filed (SA 257 of 2011) proceeding under section 88C and the certificate had been issued in favour of the Defendant. It was submitted that so far as the tenancy proceedings are concerned, though the Tenancy Authorities had held that he is not a tenant, his revision application before the MRT is pending and the said issue had not become final. Secondly, it was contended that since the landlord had applied under section 88C, he had admitted that the Plaintiff is a tenant. It was, therefore, submitted that the observation made by both the Courts below that he is not a tenant and has no locus standi, is not correct and it would come in his way in the event, the MRT passes an order in his favour. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Plaintiff had filed the suit against one Navlakha and the said suit was for possession. It was submitted that the said suit was dismissed and the said order had become final. In the said suit, both the Lower Courts had held that the suit was filed prematurely and the Plaintiff was not is in possession. It was, therefore, submitted that both the Courts below were justified in not accepting the Plaintiff's claim. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff urged that the matter may be kept pending since (SA 257 of 2011) the proceedings before the MRT have not been concluded. 6. In my view, no substantial question of law is raised in this Second Appeal. Apart from that there is a concurrent finding of fact that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Hence, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 100 cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. 7. It is clarified that if an order is passed by the MRT in favour of the Plaintiff, he is at liberty to take out such proceedings as are available to him in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)