Bombay High CourtSA/181/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Prabhu S/O. Motiram Pamnani, Thr. P.O.A. Ram Motiram Pamnani v. Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti, Khamgaon, Thr. Secretary

2017-07-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

sa180 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Second Appeal No. 180/2016 Prabhu s/o Motiram Pamnani V/s Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Khamgaon Thr. Its Secretary Second Appeal No. 181/2016 Prabhu s/o Motiram Pamnani V/s Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Khamgaon Thr. Its Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri A.V.Bhide, Advocate for appellant.

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE : July 26, 2017 Both these appeals are being decided by this common order.

The appellant is the original defendant in two suits that was field by the respondent seeking damages. It is the case of the original plaintiff that it had auctioned various shops to licence holders for carrying on business. The defendant was granted shop nos. 8 and 10 for a period of one year from 01/10/1989 to 30/09/1990. As vacant possession was not handed over after 30/09/1990, two suits were filed for claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 25 per day per shop.

The Trial Court decreed the suits by holding that

sa180 2/2 the occupation of the defendant after 30/09/1990 was as a trespasser. The appellate court has confirmed this decree.

After hearing Shri Bhide, learned counsel for appellants, I find that both the Courts rightly held the plaintiff entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 25 per day. In terms of the auction, the defendant was put in possession for a period from 01/10/1989 to 30/09/1990. As per the agreed terms, the defendant was required to pay damages at the rates of Rs. 25/- per day per shop if possession was not handed over after 30/09/1990.

In the light of this clear condition in the auction notice, the Second Appeals do not give rise any substantial question of law. The same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE nandurkar