* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 331 of 2011 M/s. Jesis Mary Joseph Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Smt. Ayodhyabai J. Suryawanshi and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Dushyant Purekar for the appellant. Mr. Amit Borkar for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : MAY 03, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 8th December, 2010 passed by the District Judge-3, Pune allowing Civil Revision Application filed by respondent no. 1. The admission of the appeal is opposed by respondent no. 1. 2. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act seeking possession of the flat in Neelanjali Cooperative Housing Society, Kalyaninagar, Pune from respondent no.2. The possession was sought on the ground of expiry of leave and licence agreement * 2 * in the name of respondent no.2- Sunil Anthony. After contest, the application came to be allowed by Competent Authority by its order dated 11th October, 2007 and respondent no. 2 was directed to hand over possession of the premises to respondent no. 1. This order came to be challenged in the higher courts and has been finally confirmed by the Apex Court on 27th February, 2009 by dismissing special leave petition filed by respondent no.2. 3. Within two months of dismissal of the SLP i.e. on 27th April, 2009, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 186 of 2009 against respondent no.1 for declaration of its alleged tenancy rights. Respondent no. 1 disputed the claim of the appellant and requested the court to raise preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain and try the suit. The trial court by its order dated 12th January, 2010, rejected the application of respondent no. 1 and held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Respondent no. 1 then preferred Civil Revision Application to the District Court to challenge the order being aggrieved by the same. The Revision Application came to be allowed by the order impugned in the present proceedings. Respondent no. 1 contended before the revisional court that there was leave and licence agreement in favour of the respondent no. 2 in respect of the suit premises during the very period in which the appellant claims tenancy in the premises. The licence of respondent no. 2 was terminated. On * 3 * termination, respondent no.1 was constrained to file eviction proceedings before the Competent Authority. After succeeding in the eviction proceedings upto the Apex Court, respondent no. 1 filed execution proceedings before the Competent Authority claiming possession of the premises. However, in the meantime, the appellant filed a suit for declaration of its tenancy. The learned District Judge noted that the suit had been filed by the appellant within a short time after the dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court and opined that the suit filed by appellant company is in collusion with respondent no. 2. It further held that the material produced by the appellant before the court was not sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties so as to maintain the suit in the Small Causes Court. 4. I have perused the impugned order of the District Court. I find that the observations made therein are borne out by the facts on record. It was claimed in the plaint that in the year 1995, respondent no. 1 agreed to give the suit premises on leave and licence basis to the appellant on monthly rent of Rs.8000/- which was to be gradually increased to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant claims that as respondent no. 1 is an illiterate lady, it was agreed that respondent no.1 would sign the vouchers issued by the appellant company and not execute any rent receipt. The appellant claims to have been in possession of the suit premises since the year 1995 as the licencee of respondent no. 1 * 4 * The appellant contends that its identity is distinct and different from respondent no, 2 who was its director and therefore the eviction decree against him is not binding on the appellant. If the argument of the appellant is to be accepted, it would mean there were two persons occupying the suit premises as licensee of respondent no. 1 at the one and same time. The appellant does not claim to be ignorant of the proceedings filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 and the final outcome of thereof. Still, it has not made even so much as an attempt to explain the presence of respondent no. 2 and orders passed against him. It is to be noted that respondent no. 2 in his written statement to the eviction proceedings had nowhere contended that the licensee in respect of the suit premises was the appellant and not him. 5. There is one more aspect of the matter. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on business of building and land development. It has filed proceedings through one Joseph Antony as it's Managing Director. Respondent no.2-Sunil Antony is the brother of Joseph Antony. The designation of Joseph as Managing Director in the cause title of the present proceedings as well as in the suit filed by the appellant is incorrect. The information on the record of the Company Registrar, shows that respondent no. 2 Sunil Antony is Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant company and Joseph is the wholetime director. It is therefore, obvious that the suit filed by the appellant * 5 * is nothing but an attempt to anyhow avoid execution proceedings and perpetuate possession of respondent no.2 over the premises. 6. Since the appellant has not been able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the District Court has correctly allowed the revision application. Hence, appeal from order is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]