1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.603 OF 2010. Rajubhai S/o Ismail Pathan ... Appellant. Versus Shripal S/o Rupchand Kale and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.A.Khan, advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.10.2010. PER COURT 1. The present Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that the Municipal Council has issued a notice for demolition of the said building as it 2 is in dilapidated condition invoking Section 16(k) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of termination of tenancy and possession. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand-over the possession. The defendant No.4 preferred appeal. During pendency of the proceedings all other defendants vacated the suit premises and it is only defendant No.4 who is in possession of the property and who contested the matter in appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court. The defendant No.4 has approached this Court assailing the judgments of the Courts below. 2. Mr.Khan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the trial Court has not framed any issue regarding the defendant No.4. He further contended that the plaintiff has not proved that the house is in dilapidated condition by examining any expert witness. Mr.Khan, further contended that the Municipal Council is not made a party and the Municipal Council would be the best witness. 3 According to him, the defendant is residing there for more than 30 years and his possession deserves to be protected. The suit is filed in collusion with the officers of the Municipal Council. Mr.Khan, further submits that the Courts have not properly appreciated this aspect of the matter. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. The issuance of notice is not a disputed fact. The Municipal Council had issued a notice for demolition of the said building. It is also not disputed that earlier the present appellant had issued a notice to the plaintiff stating that the wall is in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff should make necessary repairs. The plaintiff has examined the person who had issued the notice. The photographs of the building were placed on record and the person who had taken the photographs was examined. Both the Courts have taken into consideration the evidence of the Officer who had issued the notice so also the photographs and the evidence in that 4 regard. Not only that during the pendency of the suit, the Court had appointed the Commissioner (PW 4) Trimbak Torne, who is an Engineer in Public Works Department. He visited the suit property after issuance of notices to all the parties. He also gave a report and he submitted that the whole building is in a dilapidated condition. The Court has taken into consideration the report of an expert is an Engineer from the PWD Department, who has also substantiated the notice that the house is in a dilapidated condition. The whole evidence has been discussed by both the Courts. Though the issue reads as defendant 1A in Issue No.1 of the trial Court, in fact, the whole building was the subject matter of the suit and the defendant No.4 has also led the evidence. The Court Commissioner has also been appointed. Even the defendant No.4 has led the evidence to prove that the condition of the building is in a habitable condition but his own witness has not supported the defendant No.4 as is discussed by the Courts below. Though the defendant No.4 is residing since 30 years, that would not be a relevant 5 consideration as far as Section 16(k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, is concerned. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa60310