1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.616 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1637 OF 2008 Kantaram Pandurang Gundare : Appellant. Versus Chief Officer, Alandi Corporation & ors. : Respondents. Mr. N C Walimbe for the Appellant. Mr. Ashutosh Gole for the Respondent No.1. Ms. V S Mhaispurkar, AGP, for the State CORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 8th JANUARY 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned AGP for the State. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the original Plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts below. The Plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction restraining the Defendants from evicting him from the suit premises. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he was running a Zunka Bhakar Kendra at village Alandi. For that purpose some land was given to him on licence by the Government. And the Government has now stopped the scheme of Zunka Bhakar Kendra and has issued notice of 2 eviction. The Plaintiff therefore filed the suit and claimed that he cannot be evicted. It is also his contention that the land upon which he was running the said Zunka Bhakar Kendra belongs to Gundare family. 3. The said suit was opposed by the State Government as well as the Alandi Municipal Council. It was the contention of the Defendants that the scheme has been withdrawn by the Government and no more in existence and therefore, the present appellant were directed to deliver back the possession of the said land to the Government. It was also the contention of the Defendants that the licence was granted to the Plaintiff for a limited period of 11 months and that has come to an end and the Plaintiff has no right to remain in possession of the said land. 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record found that the Plaintiff was not in legal possession of the suit property and the Defendants’ action of issuance of notice was not illegal. Holding so, the learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the said suit. 5. Appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the learned trial Judge of the trial Court. The said appeal also 3 came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court confirming the order passed by the trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends before me that the findings of the Courts below are not correct. He also contends that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he could not have been evicted. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondents brings to my notice the observation made by the learned Judge of the trial Court in para 10 of its judgment. It appears that the Plaintiff had himself placed before the Court the deed of licence which goes to show that the licence was for a period of 11 months only. The same licence has come to an end. It is, therefore obvious that the Plaintiff was only the licensee in respect of the suit property. The said licence has come to an end. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any kind of injunction. 8. In the circumstances, there is no perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. There is, therefore, no substantial question of law involved in this 4 Second Appeal. What is being urged is the question of fact which cannot be gone into the Second Appeal. There is therefore no substance in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. 9. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 1637 of 2008 does not survive and the same accordingly disposed of. [C.L.PANGARKAR, J]