1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2003 United Karate Association, Parbhani through its President, Syed Abdul Gaffar s/o Syed Abdul Raheem, aged 39 years, Occ: Social Service, Resident of Raja Rani Complex Parbhani, Taluka & District Parbhani. Appellant Versus 1 Municipal Council Parbhani, through its Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Parbhani. 2 Suresh s/o Skhabapu Deshmukh, aged 45 years, Occ: Social Service, Municipal Councillor, Parbhani. Respondents Mrs.A.N.Ansari, advocate for the appellants. Mr.V.P.Kadam, advocate holding for Mr.S.S.Bora, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 12th August, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 This is an appeal raising exception to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.229/2001 decided by IInd 2 Additional District Judge, Parbhani on 11.10.2002, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.128/97 on 03.09.2001 came to be set aside. 2 Appellant-original plaintiff instituted suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against defendants. Plaintiff claims to be lessee in respect of premises let out by the Municipal Council by executing lease agreement on 25.03.1997 for a period of eleven months. It is contended that after execution of lease agreement, because of intervention of defendant no.2, lease agreement came to be cancelled by virtue of order passed on 17.04.197. As such, plaintiff was required to approach the Court seeking prohibitory order of injunction. 3 The trial Court, after considering evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit, whereas, in an appeal presented by defendants, decree passed by the trial Court, came to be set aside. 4 Admittedly, the period of lease under the agreement executed on 25.03.1997 was for eleven months. The appellant-original plaintiff continued to remain in occupation of the suit premises by virtue of the decree passed by the trial Court as well as interim protection granted at appellate stage until this date i. e. for a period more than 10 years. There is no renewal of lease after 1997. Appellant-plaintiff has no entitlement to continue to remain in occupation of the suit premises on the basis of lease agreement, which was initially for a period of eleven months. The appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit presented by the plaintiff. No substantial question of 3 law arises for consideration in the appeal. 5 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa1003