1 S.A.No.415/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.415 OF 2010. Praveenkumar S/o Babulal Shaha.... Appellant. Versus Agricultural Produce Market Committee through its Secretary Shri Chotelal Puransingh Arora. ... Respondent. ... Mr.H.M.Karwa, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.V.Adwant, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 02.12.2010. PER COURT 1. This is defendant's Second Appeal. The present Respondent had filed suit for eviction 2 S.A.No.415/10 and for recovery of the rent amount. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant has assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.H.M.Karwa, learned counsel submitted that both the Courts have committed error in passing the decree for eviction and holding that the present appellant is a defaulter. According to learned counsel, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such case was barred. Mr.Karwa, learned counsel further contended that the suit filed by the Secretary was not maintainable in view of Rule 106 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967. He further contended that the appellant had deposited advance of about Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand). When the same was with the landlord, the appellant can not be held to be a defaulter, interalia, no decree for 3 S.A.No.415/10 eviction could have been passed. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "M/s Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath Vs. Shri Subhas Kumar Agarwalla" reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2302 and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Modern Hotel Gudur represented by N.Narayan Vs. K.Radhakrishnaiah and others" reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1510. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. Regarding the first objection about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the said objection is not sustainable in view of Section 31 of the Rent Act, 1954 which exempts operation of the provisions of the said Act to local authorities. There can not be a debate that Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is a local authority. 4. The other objection that the Secretary was not competent to file the suit, in absence of any Resolution being produced, the same would 4 S.A.No.415/10 be misreading Rule 106 of the Rules. The Secretary is a Principal Officer of APMC. Rule 106 provides the powers and functions of Secretary. Rule 106 itself lays down that he shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Market Committee and has to carry into effect the Resolutions of the Market Committee. That would not mean that he can not function as a Chief Executive Officer without the Resolutions. Even assuming that no Resolution is there on record, still, by virtue of the fact that he is the Chief Executive Officer of APMC, he would have authority. Even Order 29 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. lays down that suit can be instituted even by a Principal Officer. Rule 106 itself says that the Secretary is the Chief Executive Officer. Moreover, the Apex Court in case of "United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others" reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3, has held that allowing public interest to be defeated on mere technicality not rectified is not proper. 5. Regarding other objection that the appellant could not have been held as defaulter 5 S.A.No.415/10 as his deposits were there. The Courts have taken into consideration the previous suits bearing Special Civil Suit No.155/1991, Small Cause Suit No.82/1993 and RCS No.991/94 and came to the conclusion that the defendant was in arrears for 32 months. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of "Modern Hotel Gudur represented by N.Narayanan Vs. K.Radhakrishnaiah" and "M/s Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath Vs. Shri Subhas Kumar Agarwalla" referred supra was in context "When the advance amount is withheld by the landlord, whether the tenant can be branded as a defaulter". In the present case the said issue does not arise as the same is not a ground necessary for the eviction in the present matter. 6. Taking the above conspectus of the matter and the judgments passed by the Courts on evaluation of the evidence on record, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is 6 S.A.No.415/10 dismissed. However, there shall be noorder as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa415.10