1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.493 OF 2005. R.S.Reckchand Gopaldas Mohta Mills ..vs.. Shri Gorakshan Sanstha -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 24th October, 2008. 1. Heard Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The respondent had instituted the suit for arrears of rent and for possession of the suit property. The said suit was instituted by the respondent – Trust after giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant mainly on two grounds that the plaint was not signed and verified by all the trustees and secondly the premises were governed by the Maharashtra Rent Act. Both these contentions were rejected by the courts below. 4. After having gone through the judgment of the trial court, I find that in paragraph No.17 of the judgment, the learned judge of the trial court has made specific observations that the plaint has been signed by all the trustees and is verified by the President of the trust. In view of this specific observation of the trial court, there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the suit was not instituted by all the trustees and there was no resolution of the trust to the effect that the suit could be instituted by a few trustees. When the plaint was signed by all the trustees and verified by President, there is no difficulty in holding that suit was properly presented. That finding has been confirmed by the appellate court. That is a finding of fact and therefore, there is no question of 3 reconsidering them. 5. As far as the contention about the application of Maharashtra Rent Act is concerned, the learned judge of the trial court as well as the appellate court have held that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. It is not disputed even before me that the appellant is the Public Sector Undertaking having a turnover of more than a crore. In view of this, the learned judges of the courts below have rightly held that the Maharashtra Rent Act has no application to the present suit. 6. Mr.Mehadia, learned counsel for the appellant, next contended before me that the appellant had already paid the entire arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit and therefore, no decree should have been passed for rent. He invited my attention to the statement of witness for the plaintiff, who has categorically admitted in the plaint that the amount of arrears of rent has been paid by cheque. Even the learned judge of the first appellate court has observed in paragraph 9 of his 4 judgment that the amount has been paid and lower court was not, therefore, justified in passing the decree for arrears of rent. Be that as it may, though the decree has been passed, the appellant is certainly at liberty to explain to the executing court that the said amount which is ordered to be paid has already been paid. The executing court can take into consideration these aspects but for that, the matter need not be admitted. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE chute