1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2002 Sheikh Pasha S/o Sheikh Khutboddin, Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gokulnagar, Nanded. .. .. APPELLANT Versus 1. Nanded Municipal Council, Nanded (Nanded Waghala Mahanagar Palika), through its Municipal Commissioner, N. W. M. C. Nanded. 2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, Urban Division, Vidut Bhavan, Nanded. 3. Md. Omer Farookhi S/o Md. Akbar, Age : 66 Years, (Blind person) Through next friend A. Basheer S/o A. Majid, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, R/o Khidwai Nagar, Nanded. .. .. RESPONDENTS (Respondent No. 3 dismissed as per Court's Order dated 18.06.2009) Shri P. V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel i/by Shri N. K. Tungar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 served - absent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Mandalik, learned senior counsel for the appellant. The original plaintiff who brought a suit against the respondents i. e. Nanded Municipal Corporation and The Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Mohd. Omer Farookhi, the original defendants for perpetual injunction restraining them from causing illegal and forceful dispossession from the suit premises admeasuring 7 feet x 8 feet bearing Municipal No. 1-12=692/1 (1-12-789 old) a shop-let situated at Gokul Nagar area Nanded without following due process of law and further from causing illegal disconnection of electricity supply. 2. It is admitted that, the defendant No. 3 is the tenant of the said shop-let and it was sub let to the present plaintiff. It is further stated that, the tenant Omer Farookhi was blind person. He could not do any business and had sub-let to plaintiff/appellant to the knowledge of other respondents i. e. Municipal Corporation and Electricity Board. Now the corporation also passed resolution to protect the sub tenants and the list was prepared, wherein, name of the appellant/plaintiff is shown at serial No. 109. The suit of the appellant was dismissed so also the First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court's judgment and decree of dismissal of suit, though observed that, plaintiff continues to be in possession of the shop-let in question. 3. Thus, the nature of the suit is of injunction simplicitor insisting on following due procedure and restraining corporation 3 from causing forcible dispossession. There is nothing brought on record that there is ejectment of the plaintiff/appellant by force by the corporation. The scope of the suit is limited to the extent of perpetual injunction and, therefore, it will not affect appellant's claim to sub tenancy or regular tenancy as per the resolution if any passed. 4. However, no case is made out for admission of the appeal. No substantial question is found for interfering with the impugned judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Hence the appeal stands dismissed summarily with no order as to costs, with liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to take appropriate steps for getting the shop-let as sub tenant or tenant and to have a electric meter supplied separately in his name on payment of dues and arrears so far for the use and occupation of premises, so also for the consumption of electricity and power supply to him. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Dec.09