IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.875 2007 APPEAL NO.875 2007 APPEAL NO.875 2007 Uddhav Dhanaji Gonjari ..Appellant V/s. Dattatraya Gopalkrishna Keskar & Ors. ..Respondents ....... Mr. R.S. Apte i/by Mr. Girish Paryani for Appellant Mr. P.B. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ....... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI K.K. TATED, J : SHRI K.K. TATED, J : SHRI K.K. TATED, J DATE DATE DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Appeal is preferred by original defendant No.1 against Judgment and Decree dated 14th August, 2007 passed by the District Judge-I, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.124 of 2001 arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 21st March, 2001 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi at Dahiwadi in Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 1995. 3. In the above mentioned matter, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 1995 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior : 2 : Division, Dahiwadi at Dahiwadi against the Appellant original defendant No.1 and Respondent Nos.3A to 3E original defendant No.2 for possession of the suit property. It is the case of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they own City Survey Nos.114 and 115. There is a shed at East side in their property admeasuring about 30 ft. South-North and 12 Ft. East-West. This property i.e. shed was given to Appellant original defendant No.1 before 20 years on the basis of monthly tenancy as per English calender on rent of Rs.200/- per month. In the said property, the Appellant started Hotel business in the said shed. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued a notice to the Appellant and terminated his tenancy by the end of 31st March, 1994. Inspite of the said legal notice, Appellant failed and neglected to pay the rent amount and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 1995 for possession of the suit property. In the said suit, Appellant failed to file his written statement. Considering the documents on record, Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi at Dahiwadi passed decree dated 21st March, 2001 against Appellant directing him to hand over possession of the suit property to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within two : 3 : months from the date of order and also directed to pay amount of Rs.7,200/- towards arrears of rent amount for the period of 3 years prior to the institution of the suit and a sum of Rs.200/- per month in lieu of rent from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree dated 21st March, 2001 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi at Dahiwadi in Regular Civil Suit No.256 of 1995, the Appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.124 of 2001. The Appellate Court held that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the Appellant failed to file his written statement. The Appellate Court recorded in paragraph 6 of the Judgment that :- "....6. Even after filing the appeal no attempt was made to get the written statement of defendant No.1 to disclose his defence on record, was made. In such situation, I find that this appellate Court has no material before it to disown the contentions made by the plaintiffs. Trial Court has rightly passed the decree of eviction against the defendant No.1." 5. The learned counsel for the parties heard. The questions of facts have been concluded by the concurrent finding of the lower two Courts. There is no : 4 : substantial question of law to be decided in the Second Appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeal and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the Courts below on examining the issues raised by the respective parties recorded concurrent findings and held that Appellant failed to file his written statement and disclose his defence, the Appellant also failed and neglected to pay and or deposit the rent in respect of the suit property in the Court. This view taken by the Courts below, cannot be held to be erroneous calling interference at the hands of this Court while exercising the powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the challenge to these orders is devoid of substance. Now, it is well settled that as per provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if no substantial question is involved in the Second Appeal, the appeal can not be entertained. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in M/s. M/s. M/s. K.C. K.C. K.C. Methew and Sons and Anr. V/s. Sulaikha Beevi & Methew and Sons and Anr. V/s. Sulaikha Beevi & Methew and Sons and Anr. V/s. Sulaikha Beevi & Ors.AIR Ors.AIR Ors.AIR 2000 SC 3409. 2000 SC 3409. 2000 SC 3409. In the case in hand, it is not shown by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below are either perverse or based on no evidence and as such in my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal and, therefore, the present Second Appeal : 5 : is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application No.1564 of 2008 does not survive and hence dismissed. Ad-interim granted on 17th September, 2008 is vacated. (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J) Tated, J) Tated, J)