1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2008 IN AAPPEAL NO. 289 OF 2006 IN INTERIM NOTICE NO. 310 OF 2004 IN T.D. SUIT NO. 278/304 OF 2003 Naresh Namchand Shah & Ors. .. Applicants Vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. .. Respondents Mr. Tushar Bhavsar, Advocate, i/b. Interjuris for the applicants. Mr. Rakesh K.Singh, Advocate, i/b. Singhania Legal Service for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. 2 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent is the tenant of the applicants. The applicants have given the suit premises to the respondent for a period of five years. However, later on, the respondent found that there is no proper access for the said building. Inspite of the requests of the respondent, the grievances were not rectified. According to the respondent, sometime prior to 31st July, 2003, it had vacated the premises. The plaintiffs-landlords filed suit for recovery of arrears as well as current rent on the ground that till the expiry of the contract period of five years, the defendant is liable to pay rent. The plaintiffs took out Notice of Motion seeking directions to the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The respondent contended that the plaintiff had committed breach of the contract and therefore it was compelled to vacate the suit premises and therefore the plaintiffs could not seek such relief about the payment of arrears of rent. 3. The trial Court rejected the notice of Motion holding that there were allegations of breach of contract on the part of the plaintiffs and that the 3 defendant has pleaded that it had already vacated the premises long back. The trial Court held that it is not appropriate to pass any interim order which would amount to passing a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. That appeal was also dismissed by the said Court. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present Revision Application. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned orders, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. 5. Therefore, the Revision Application stands dismissed. The trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by the Courts below while deciding the suit as well as the appeal. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)