IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER(Stamp) NO.19013 of 2007 Sanjay Mohanlal Mehta .. Appellant V/s B.P.T.Kamgar Sahakar Grahak Mandal Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents Shri Rahul S. Thakur for the appellant Shri U.J.Makhija i/b Motiwala and Co. for the Respondent no.2 CORAM:S.R.SATHE,J. DATED:24th Oct. 2007 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for Appellant and Respondents. 2. Admittedly the suit premises are owned by the Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay and the same have been leased out to defendant no.1 on certain terms and conditions. One of such conditions was that defendant no.1 shall not sublease the suit premises. Even then the appellant has come to the Court with a case that defendant no.1 has given the suit premises to him on leave and license basis and he is paying amount of RPS.10,000/- per month to the defendant no.1. Apprehending that defendant no.2 would evict plaintiff without following due process of law, he filed present suit and prayed for temporary injunction restraining defendant no.2 from obstructing the plaintiffs possession of the suit property and also mandatory injunction directing defendant no.2 to restore the electric supply of the suit premises. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff has failed to make out any prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in his favour. Naturally, he rejected the Notice of Motion. 3. Admittedly there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no.2 the owner of the suit property. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant no.2, the Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay have taken the law in their hand and are trying to evict the appellant without due process of law. Merely because the defendant no.2 has disconnected the electric supply of the suit premises the plaintiff has filed the present suit. It must be noted that even as per agreement between plaintiff and Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay and the defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 has reserved its right in respect of supply of electric cable, water, gas etc. Even the learned Advocate for the Appellant during the course of argument conceded the position that vis a vis the plaintiff the defendant no.2 is not under in any obligation. When such is the position there is no question of granting any temporary injunction against the defendant no.2 because there is nothing on record to show that defendant no.2 has committed any breach of their obligation against the Appellant. In fact it appears that even when plaintiff had approached the plaintiff no.2 to seek electricity supply the defendant no.2 had rightly rejected the plaintiff’s prayer in that behalf. So, the learned trial Judge rightly rejected the Notice of Motion. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is arbitrary or capricious or the same is not borne out from the material on record. So there is no necessity to interfere with the said order, in the present appeal. 4. Hence A.O. is dismissed in limine. 5. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.R.SATHE,J)