１ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2009 Madanlal s/o Uttamchand Desarda and another ... APPELLANTS V E R S U S Datta s/o Anandrao Sawant and others ... RESPONDENTS ________________________________________________________ Shri. Ajit D. Kasliwal, Advocate for the appellants Shri. P.R. Patni, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5 Shri. V. D. Sonwane, Advocate for respondent No.6 ________________________________________________________ [ CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2009 PER COURT : 1. The second appeal is challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge – 2, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2007 whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the respondent No. 1’s suit. 2. The respondent No.1 filed suit initially against the respondent No.6/the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad challenging the legality of notice under Section 264 of B.P.M.C. ２ Act dated 14th August, 1998. 3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 was tenant of the appellant and was residing in an old house. It is further admitted fact that the house became dilapidated due to old age and had become dangerous for human occupation. In 1998 respondent No.1 sought permission of the Corporation for repair of the house. The Corporation granted him permission to repair the house provided, he would use the same building material and would use the same foundation. The respondent No.1 admittedly did not use the original material but used new building material, such as; new bricks and new iron girders in place of old bricks and old wooden beams. The Corporation objected to this and issued the notice. During pendency of the suit, the appellant contested the litigation being landlord and owner of the suit structure. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondent No.1 had committed breach of the condition imposed for granting repair permission. 4. However, the first appellate Court held that the respondent No.1 had no other alternative but to use new building material as old material was useless. He held that the respondent No.1 did not violate the condition imposed in the repair permission. The learned Judge of ３ the first appellate Court thus decreed the suit and quashed the impugned notice. With the result, the Corporation would not be able to pursue action contemplated by the suit notice. It is clear that the Corporation has also reconciled with the situation and have decided not to file further appeal against the Judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court. 5. It is in this background that one must appreciate the propriety of the second appeal filed by the landlord. The only question that arose between the parties at the first appeal stage was, whether the respondent No.1 could have used new building material while causing repairs to the suit structure. The first Appellate Court, as stated above, held in his favour. In this background, the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court also observed that despite of the repairs, there is no change in the dimensions of the suit structure. In other words, due to repairs, the structure has been renovated to such an extent that it has almost become a new structure. 6. There appears no substantial question of Law now involved in this appeal atleast when the appeal is filed by the landlord. The landlord cannot raise an independent objection to the propriety of the impugned Judgment qua the impugned notice. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court dealt with the issue quite properly and ４ recorded cogent reasons. In the result, the appeal should therefore fail, and hence, stands dismissed. ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J ) srm/sa146.09