1. The appellant (original defendant no.1) challenged validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, whereby the learned City Civil Judge had framed issue about proof of tenancy in respect of suit premises as also as to who inherited the tenancy rights amongst the heirs of original tenant Mathuraprasad Mittal Yadav. The court held that the instrument (agreement dated 26.10.2005) executed between defendant nos.1 and 2 is not binding upon the plaintiff.

2. The appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and order made a grievance that learned City Civil Judge did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the real cause of action before the court, which raised question relating to tenancy of the suit premises, as also, as to status of legal heir as tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It does appear that the trial court had framed an issue regarding jurisdiction of City Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. But it was answered in the affirmative and the learned Judge proceeded to deal with the merits of the averments in the plaint.

3. Learne