:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4662 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4662 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4662 OF 2007 Shree Sainath Mandal & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Dattatray V. Pathare & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Sandesh Patil h/for Mr.D.R.Shah, advs. for the Petitioners. Mr.C.T.Chandratre, adv. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2007. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2007. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2007. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Respondent no.4 is admittedly the owner of certain property and the respondent no.1 to 3 claim to be the tenants of the respondent no.4 over the said property. The respondent nos.1 to 3 filed R.A.D. Suit No.48 of 2000 against the respondent no.4. The suit was decreed and the respondent nos.1 to 3 are declared tenants. In that suit, the present petitioners filed an application to be impleaded as intervenors. That application was rejected. After the suit was decreed, the present petitioners filed an appeal against the decree with an application seeking leave to prefer appeal. However, the leave to prefer appeal against that decree was refused on the ground that they were not parties to that suit and had no locus standi in the :2: matter. Against that they have preferred the present writ petition. 3. From the facts stated before me, it is clear that the respondent no.4 is the owner of the property and the respondent nos.1 to 3 claim to be the tenants. Their suit has been decreed and the respondent no.4 has not preferred any appeal against that. The present petitioners claim to have established a Mitra Mandal and to have constructed a temple on the open land belonging to the respondent no.4 and according to them, the claim of the respondent nos.1 to 3 as tenants over that property is bogus and based on forged documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the respondent no.1 Shri Sainath Mitra Mandal is not a registered trust. It does not have any document or title over the said property. There is no material to show that it has any interest in the property. Further the suit was between the respondent nos.1 to 3 on one hand and the respondent no.4 as the landlady on the other. That suit has already been disposed off. If the petitioners have got any right, title or interest in the said property, they can take appropriate steps as per the law but they can not claim any right to prefer an appeal against the decree passed in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3. I find no substance in the petition. :3: 4. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. [J.H.BHATIA, J.] [J.H.BHATIA, J.] [J.H.BHATIA, J.]