Short Note : 1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant Indore Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, from exercising its powers under section 310 (1) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act, on the ground that the Corporation was exercising these powers mala-fide and not in accordance with law. It was alleged that these powers relating to removal of buildings in dangerous state were being exercised by the Corporation at the instance of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the landlords of the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted by the defendant-Corporation. The trial Court held that the suit house was proved to have been in a dangerous state and that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case that the Corporation was exercising powers under section 310 (1) mala-fide and not in accordance with law. On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs have, therefore, preferred this second appeal. 2. So far as the question of mala-fide is concerned, there is a concurrent finding of the Courts below that the Corporation is not exercising the powers in question mala-fide. This is a finding which is based on the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out that in arriving at this finding the lower appellate Court has committed any error of law or failed to take into consideration any material evidence or has misread any evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that officers or councillors of the Corporation were acting mala-fide at the instance of and to oblige defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the landlords. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants was also unable to point out any provision of law which was being contravened by the Corporation while exercising powers under section 310 (1) of the Act. The fact that DW-2 Jayant, an Engineer of the defendant Corporation, validly exercised powers of the Commissioner at the material time is not disputed on behalf of the appellant. It has also come on record that the house was inspected by DW-2 Jayant before issuing notice under section 310 (1) of the Act. The inspection report (Ex.D-6) is on record. The fact that DW-2 Jayant, an Engineer of the defendant Corporation, validly exercised powers of the Commissioner at the material time is not disputed on behalf of the appellant. It has also come on record that the house was inspected by DW-2 Jayant before issuing notice under section 310 (1) of the Act. The inspection report (Ex.D-6) is on record. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the testimony of PW-1 Vishwanath, an Engineer examined by the plaintiffs. But once it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was any ulterior purpose in the proceedings commenced by the Corporation under section 310 of the Act. I am afraid that the Courts cannot substitute their assessment of the danger for that of the Commissioner, as observed by Krishnan, J. In Ram Narain vs. Ramchandra, 1960 JLJ 939 , with which I respectfully agree. Appeal dismissed.