1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.433 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.433 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.433 OF 2007 Vithal Dattatraya Pandit : Appellant versus Mehmuna Abdul Momin & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Ranjana Dube i/by Asif Iqbal I. Patel for the appellant. Ms.Nilima Sanglikar for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. : JULY 09, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The above Second Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 3.12.2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No.291 of 1999 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Satara by the said judgment, the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1999 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 1997 by the learned Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Koregaon was set aside. 2 2. The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 1997 for eviction of the Respondents, the Appellant relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said suit written statement came to be filed on behalf of the Respondents/Defendants inter alia taking a plea that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Rent Act is applicable to the premises in question. The Respondents/Defendants relied upon Schedule II of the Notification Appendix (Part A) to the said Act which sets out boundaries for the application of the Rent Act wherein the suit premises are situated. The Trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the Rent Act was not applicable and in view thereof a suit filed relying on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was maintainable. The trial Court therefore decreed the suit by the judgment and order dated 6.9.1999. The Respondents herein carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Court relying upon the said Notification recorded a finding that it was for the Appellant herein to prove that the Rent Act was not applicable. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the burden was on the Defendants in the said suit 3 to prove that the Rent Act was applicable. The said submission is misconceived as the Defendants had based their claim on the said Schedule II of the Notification and the burden, therefore, shifted on the Appellant herein to prove that the premises in question did not lie within the boundaries spelt out in the said Notification. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Rent Act was applicable considering the said Notification. In my view, the challenge raised in the Second Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, [R.M.SAVANT, J] J] J]