1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 536/2009 1 1-A 1-B 1-C 1-D 1-E Haribhau s/o Ana Sutre, Dies Legal Representatives: Smt. Shantabai w/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 76 years, Occu. Household, Ramesh s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 54 years, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq & Dist. Beed. Anil s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 38 yeas, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq & Dist. Beed. Satish s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Sow Lalita w/o Dattatraya Lande, Age : 50 years, Occu. Household, R/o Shaneewar Peth, Beed. Tq. and Dist. Beed. ...Appellants. Versus 1 2 Sayyad Allabaksh s/o Sayyad Nizam, Age : 78 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Rajurives, Bashirganj, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Abdul Sattar s/o Mohd. Sajan, Age : 58 years, Occu. Pensioner, 2 3 4 5 R/o Balepeer, Ajmer Nagar, Nagar Road, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Sk. Shabbir s/o Sk. Maheboob Chawdhari, Age : 42 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhondipura, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Sk. Maheboob s/o Shakkarji Chowdhari, Age : 75 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Dhondipura, Beed Tq. and Dist. Beed. Mohammed Hasham s/o Mohd. Sarvar, Age : 80 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Shahu Nagar, Pangri Road, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. (Respondents No. 4 and 5 deleted vide Registrar’s order dated 01/04/2009). Respondents Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. Mr. G.K. Thigale, Advocate for respondents no.1to 3. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 537/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7994/2009 1 1-A Haribhau s/o Ana Sutre, Dies Legal Representatives: Smt. Shantabai w/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 76 years, Occu. Household, 3 1-B 1-C 1-D 1-E Ramesh s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 54 years, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq & Dist. Beed. Anil s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 38 yeas, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq & Dist. Beed. Satish s/o Haribhau Sutre, Age : 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o Hiralal Chowk, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Sow Lalita w/o Dattatraya Lande, Age : 50 years, Occu. Household, R/o Shaneewar Peth, Beed. Tq. and Dist. Beed. ...Appellants. Versus 1 2 3 Sayyad Allabakh s/o Sayyad Nizam, Age : 78 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Rajurives, Bashirganj, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Abdul Sattar s/o Mohd. Sajan, Age : 58 years, Occu. Pensioner, R/o Balepeer, Ajmer Nagar, Nagar Road, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. Sk. Shabbir s/o Sk. Maheboob Chawdhari, Age : 42 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhondipura, Beed, Tq and Dist. Beed. .Respondents. 4 Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. Mr. G.K. Thigale, Advocate for respondents no.1to 3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date : 11th August, 2010. JUDGMENT 1 Heard. 2 Both these appeals can be disposed by this common judgment because they arose from one suit. These appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned judge of the first appeal Court in two appeals filed by the appellant as well as the respondents. 3 The respondent was the plaintiff in the trial Court. It was his case that, the appellant did not pay rent of the suit premises and had committed default. He said that despite giving notice demanding the rent and seeking eviction, the appellant did not pay the arrears of rent. On the ground of default in payment of rent, the suit was filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 4 The appellant took up stand that he was willing to pay the amount of rent but the respondent did not accept the same. However, after filing of the suit, he did not deposit the 5 arrears in the Court. In view of this, at the trial stage the suit was decreed only to the extent of the recovery of the amount of arrears of the rent. 5 The trial Court refused to pass an order of eviction on the ground that the respondent landlord had failed to register the agreement of tenancy/leave and licence as required by Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The appellate Court held that failure on the part of the landlord to register the agreement under Section 55 will not be fatal to his case. He held that in view of the provisions of Section 15 (2) and (3), the respondent landlord was entitled to decree of possession also. The tenant has come in appeal. 6 The only question that was raised by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is that the suit was not maintainable for want of compliance of Order and provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent filed a suit saying that he was a office bearer of certain panch committee of Bagwan Samaj of Beed and in that capacity, he had filed the suit. The appellant at trial stage did not object to his filing of this suit in that capacity. He did not 6 raise an objection that the respondent could not have filed suit on behalf of an unregistered society/Trust. This objection was raised for the first time at the first appeal stage and the learned judge giving cogent reasons rejected the same. I see no reason to interfere in the finding recored by the first appeal Court on this point. Thus there arose no 'substantial question of law' in this appeal. So, the appeal should fail. ORDER The appeals stand dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] task/ok