1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No. 753 of 2006 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the appellant and Shri N.L.Desle, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. This second appeal is filed by original plaintiffs' whose suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court. Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 1999 filed against that dismissal, was also dismissed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dhule. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through judgments of both the courts below. 2 Appellants-original plaintiffs were the tenant in the suit property and it is their case that it was duty of the landlords to keep the suit premises in habitable condition and since there was failure on the part of the owner, appellants intended to carry out repairs but the landlords did not permit and therefore suit for injunction was filed. 4. Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the premises have suffered so much damages that the same cannot be restored to habitable or tenantable condition. In fact, the municipal council has also issued notice to landlord for demolition of the building as the same had became dangerous for habitation. Not only that, the landlords have filed suit for eviction on the ground that they wanted to demolish the building in view of notice by municipal council and decree in favour of landlords was 3 passed by the trial court. 5. In paragraph 9 of its judgment, the First Appellate Court has considered the extent of damage which was proved. The court came to a conclusion that it is almost reconstruction of the building that is sought to be made by the appellants which cannot be allowed under the Rent Control Act. It is observed that even from the evidence of plaintiff, it is clear that the walls of the suit premises had collapsed, two rooms had no ceiling, third room had a big hole and substantial part of roof had collapsed and municipal council had issued notice to pull down the premises as the same had become inhabitable. 6. In view of above factual details, in my opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Considering this 4 and in view of concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Date:17/07/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/sa753.06