IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2008 M/S. U. K. PRINTERS AND STATIONERS BY ITS PARTNERS ... Appellant Versus SHRI. YESHWANT RAYA LAAD AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho,Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Agni, Advocate for the respondents Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 5th March, 2009 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This second appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that the order passed by the Rent Controller, granting permission to the defendant No.1 i.e. the respondent No.1 herein, to evict him from the suit premises on the ground that the defendant No.2/ respondent No.2 has sublet the premises to the plaintiff, is not binding on the plaintiff. 3. Section 51 of the Rent Control Act shows that the decree passed against a tenant would be binding on the subtenant and the subtenant can avoid execution of the decree as passed by the Rent Controller against him only on the ground that said order was obtained by fraud or collusion. It is apparent for this reason that the plaintiff/ appellant instituted a suit for declaration that the order that was obtained by the defendant no.1, was obtained by him in collusion with the defendant No.2 i.e. the respondent No.2. 4. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the order that is obtained by the defendant No.1, has not been obtained by any collusion or fraud. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, submits before me that there is no evidence of subtenancy and on the other hand, there is evidence available that the defendant No.1, who is landlord, has accepted the plaintiff as a tenant. He submits that there is no question of the plaintiff being a subtenant at all. He also submits that the collusion of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, is apparent because of the fact that the defendant No.2 had instituted a civil suit No.11/89 against the present plaintiff which came to be dismissed. He submits that in that suit, the defendant No.2 had claimed that the plaintiff was his tenant. The learned Counsel states that after dismissal of the suit, these proceedings were filed and it is apparent that there is collusion between the two. 6. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, has referred to an agreement said to have been executed between the present appellant and the defendant No.2. The said agreement has been reproduced by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in the judgment, which shows that the plaintiff has been inducted in the premises through the defendant No.2. The document is very clear, which clearly says that the defendant No.2 was initially a tenant and the possession has now been handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is supposed to pay the rent to the Landlord. However, it is further made clear in the agreement that the rent receipts would be passed in favour of the defendant No.2. Although it is so mentioned in the said agreement that the arrangement is made with consent of the landlord, the learned Judge of the Trial Court as a fact found that there is no evidence whatsoever of the consent. If there was no consent on the part of the landlord, it cannot be said that the landlord had ever accepted the plaintiff as a tenant. If the plaintiff is claiming tenancy through the defendant No.2, no other inference can be drawn and the inference that has been drawn by the Trial Court, cannot be said to be perverse particularly if the agreement dated 26.04.1971 is concerned. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, has also concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court that there is no evidence of the status of the plaintiff being that of the tenant. On the other hand, there is evidence available that the status of the plaintiff is that of the subtenant and there is no evidence whatsoever of collusion between the parties. Since the Courts have concurrently found that there was neither fraud nor collusion between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, those findings and the facts, have assumed finality and cannot be disturbed in second appeal, and these cannot be a ground for admission of second appeal. What was urged before me, related to question of fact and no question of law is urged in this matter and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA