SA. 109-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 109 OF 2011 Namdeo Hitvardhak Sanstha Mahad through its Trustees ...Appellants Vs. Janardan Shankar Ravlekar & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Onkar V. Warange, for the Appellants. Mr. Rahul S. Kate, for Respondent No.1. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and respondent No.1. The appellants are original defendants whereas respondent No.1 is original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendants’. 2. Plaintiff was a tenant in respect of a shop situated in the premises which was owned by the Trust. According to the plaintiff, there was an agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant and SA. 109-11 - 2 - by the said agreement it was agreed that the Trust would reconstruct open space, surrounding the temple and after the reconstruction would hand over possession of a shop to the plaintiff. 3. The grievance of the plaintiff was that in spite of this agreement, the defendant Trust did not hand over shop to him and therefore, he filed a suit, seeking vacant possession of the suit premises and for an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession. The trial Court dismissed the said suit. Against the said judgment and order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, the Defendant/Trust has filed this Second Appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/Trust that the lower Appellate Court had erred in allowing the appeal of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the lower Appellate Court did not take into consideration that permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, was not obtained, and therefore, agreement executed between the defendant/Trust and the Plaintiff was not binding on the Trust. He invited my attention to clause 5(c) of the said agreement. He has also taken me through the judgment & order of the SA. 109-11 - 3 - lower Appellate Court. He also submitted that the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and had dismissed the suit. 4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants herein/original defendant Trust cannot be accepted. The execution of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants is not disputed. It is further admitted that plaintiff initially was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and that the Trust decided to reconstruct the portion of the land, adjoining the temple. Since it was agreed by the Trust to hand over the reconstructed shop to the plaintiff, who was a tenant in respect of the premises, the question of obtaining permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act does not arise. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit after taking into consideration the evidence on record. The finding of fact which is arrived at by the lower Appellate Court cannot be disturbed while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No substantial question of law is raised in this appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]