IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.321 OF 2010 (SMT. KRUSHNA KAMALKUMAR METHI...VS.. ANILKUMAR MAHESHKUMAR PATEL & ORS.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. B.M.Kharkate, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.N.Vastani, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs sought a direction restraining the defendant from making any construction in the rented premises and further to restrict him from constructing on the suit premises. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants who were the tenants in the suit premises had illegally demolished certain part of the premises and had carried out some construction which deteriorated the condition of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the so called repairs were carried out by the defendants without permission of the Rent Controller. 3. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the defendants had sought the consent of the plaintiffs before making the construction in the dilapidated portion of the suit premises. The defendant denied that they had unlawfully and illegally constructed some portion which obstructed the three doors and three windows on the southern side of the plaintiffs' property. The defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court appointed the Commissioner and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, along with the Commissioner's report, held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the defendants had illegally attempted to carryout the construction in the rented premises. The Courts further held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that the defendant had carried out the construction of the structure which obstructed the three windows and three doors on the southern side of the plaintiff's property. The Courts, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts. They are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RR.