1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.223 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.11.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction perpetual as well as mandatory. So also sought possession of 4x6 fts. of area. The trial Court decreed the suit. The Respondents preferred an appeal. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the appellant would be entitled for possession as he has been dispossessed without following due process of law. The portion admeasuring 4x6 fts. was taken in possession by the Respondents forcibly. In that case the appellant is not required to prove his title or his source of possession. It is sufficient even if he proves forcible dispossession. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has a license under the Shops and Establishment Act, which is sufficient to establish his possession. 3. Per contra, Mr.Hiwrekar, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff was in possession of an area of land admeasuring 25x10 fts. or even 10x12 fts. as is claimed by the plaintiff. In absence of the same, it can not be said that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from an area of 4x6 fts. 4. I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts. The appellant claims to be a tenant of a Municipal Council. Initially, he claimed an area 25x10 fts. to be in his occupation but subsequently, restricted it to 10x12.5 fts. The Municipal Council is a local authority would not have any authority to enter into a transaction of lease without passing any Resolution or executing any agreement. In the present case, there is not a single document nor even any rent receipt to show that the plaintiff was tenant of the suit premises as claimed by him. The defendant was stated that he was in possession of 8x10 fts. The area of 4x6 ft6s. which is claimed to have been taken in possession by the defendant is not proved to be in occupation of the plaintiff at the relevant time. In light of the same, the benefit of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, would not be available. The view taken by the Court below is a possible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view may have been possible. In light of the same, the Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.11.2010. asp/office/sa223.10