1 CRA Nos.31/2006 & 28/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2006. Sambhajirao s/o Ramji Umrekar - PETITIONER VERSUS Jaikumar s/o Bankatlal Bakliwal and another - RESPONDENTS ***** AND CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2006. Sambhajirao s/o Ramji Umrekar - PETITIONER VERSUS Jaikumar s/o Bankatlal Bakliwal and another - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PV Mandlik, Sr.Counsel for Petitioner; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT: 1) The Revisions are admitted on 20th March, 2007. 2 CRA Nos.31/2006 & 28/2006 2) Heard learned Sr.Counsel for the revision petitioner. Since the controversy involved in both the revisions is identical, they are disposed of by this common order. 3) Decree dated 12.1.2006 in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.196/2000 & 195/2000, arising out of decrees in RCS Nos.363/1991 & 795/1985 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1995/- and Rs. 10,380 respectively, is impugned. 4) The initial status of the respondent as a landlord and revision applicant as a tenant is not in controversy. The applicant/petitioner came with a case that there was an agreement of sale between him and the owner (Respondent) concerning the suit property. However, the suit for specific performance of contract moved by the applicant has been dismissed. There is nothing to illustrate that the contention of the appellant, to be in possession based on agreement of sale of the property, is accepted at any level 5) The stand that has been generated by the appellant, non-liability to remit the rent, has been elaborately discussed by both the authorities. Even they have illustrated the legal impulse arising out of termination of the suit 3 CRA Nos.31/2006 & 28/2006 for specific performance of contract. There was discussion in relation to effect of Article 54 of the Limitation Act for lodging a suit for specific performance of contract, as the notice that was issued by the applicant herein, based on agreement of sale, was itself beyond the period of limitation. Subsequent action of filing the suit was also barred by limitation. 6) Taking survey of the findings of both the authorities illustrate, no apparent illegality or perversity is projected to cause any interference therein. Civil Revision Applications lack merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/