Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 of 1987 Narayan Hari Waghmare ..Petitioner V/s. Madhukar Yashwant Deshpande & anr. ..Respondents Mr. R.L.Patil for the petitioner. Mrs. Asha M. Bhambwani for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . In this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the decree passed by the Lower Court declaring that the respondent no. 1 was direct tenant of respondent no.2 as well as the decree passed by the Lower Court dismissing his suit for eviction filed by the petitioner against respondent no.1. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 is the owner in respect of the suit property. The petitioner claims that he was inducted by respondent no.2 as tenant in the suit property with right to sublet. According to the petitioner, in consonance with that privilege the petitioner inducted respondent no.1 in the suit premises. On that assertion petitioner claims that respondent no. 1 was his tenant and, therefore, moved the R.A.E. Suit No. 74/1979. The said suit has been dismissed by the Court below. At the sametime, respondent no.1 had filed suit for 2 declaration that he was direct tenant of respondent no.2 in R.A.D. Suit No. 1759 of 1978. Significantly, the suit filed by respondent no.1 has been decreed in favour of respondent no.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5365/1987 challenging the findings recorded by the Appellate Court to the effect that respondent no. 1 was the tenant of respondent no.2 thereby rejecting the stand of the petitioner that respondent no.1 was his tenant in the suit premises. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 13th June, 1997. The petitioner took out Civil Application No. 2084/2007 for recall of that order and to hear the writ petition on merits afresh. However, even the said application has been dismissed on 5-10-2007. The logical fall out of said two orders is that finding recorded by the Court below in the impugned judgment that respondent no.1 was the tenant of respondent no.2 in respect of suit premises has attained finality. It is common ground that the petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid orders passed in Writ Petition No. 5365/1987 and Civil Application No. 2084/2007. Once finding so recorded in the declaration suit filed by respondent no.1 has become final, the question of examining the same contention in the present writ petition merely because the same remained pending, does not arise. The finding which has attained finality as recorded in favour of respondent 3 no.1 and against the petitioner would bind the petitioner even in the present petition. If any other view was to be taken, it would invite a situation of passing inconsistent decrees and inconsistent findings in respect of the same subject matter, the suit premises and between the same parties. That cannot be countenenced. In the circumstances, this petition should necessarily fail and is so dismissed. No costs. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]