1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.52 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2011 Smt. Neha K. Powale and Ors. ...Appellants. v. Mr. Kishor H. Powale and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. J.M.Purankik ,adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Kunal Phule i/by P.A.Sawant, advs. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Ravi Thankain, adv. For the R.No.3. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs against the rejection of notice of motion by the trial Court. By the notice of motion, plaintiffs wanted to restrain the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit premises. Respondent/defendant no.1 is husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiff nos.2 and 3. Respondent/defendant no.2 is mother of the respondent no.1. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the tenants in the suit premises and the respondent no.3 is landlord. Respondent no.3 has already filed suit for eviction against the respondent nos.1 and 2. That suit was dismissed. Appeal against 2 dismissal of that suit was also dismissed. Respondent no.3 has filed revision application against dismissal of his suit for eviction. This indicates that respondent no.3 was following due process of law for eviction and possession and that he had no intention to dispossess tenants from the premises by force or otherwise than by due process of law. In these circumstances, apprehension of the appellants about dispossession without following due process of law is misplaced. Possibility of the suit and the notice of motion being collusive between the plaintiffs and the respondent nos.1 and 2 can not be ruled out. 3 I find no substance in the present appeal. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application does not survive and also stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)