1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2003 Smt. Antoneta D'Souza e Rebello (since deceased) represented by her legal representatives 1. Mrs. Celina Rebello, 1A Mr. Roshan Rebello, both residing at Kankanady P.O. Nanthur, Mangalore – 575 002 2 Mrs. Ida Martins, 2A Mr. Milagre Martins, Both residing at Bomado, P.O. Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. 3. Mrs. Annie Martins, 3 A Mr. Afronio Martins, Both residing at Grande Durga, P.O. Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. 4. Mrs. Marcelina Ferrao, 4 A. Mr. Elvis Ferrao, Sirlim Banda, House No.199, P.O. Dramapur, Salcete, Goa 403 725. 5. Mr. Carmelino P. Rebello, 5A Mrs. Antonieta Rebello, House No.45, Betifond, Dessua, P.O. Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa 6. Mr. Joaquim Jose Rebello, 6 A Mrs. Julie Rebello, 2 House No.45, Betifond, Dessua, P.O. Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. ............. Petitioners. V/s. 1. Shri Gopinath Raghuvir Raikar, major in age, s/o. Roghuvir Raikar, married, and his wife 2. Smt. Mirabai Gopinath Raikar, major in age, housewife, Both r/o. C/o. Smt. Shaila Joshi, H.No.120, Copela Vaddo, Panorconem, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. .......... Respondents. Mr. A F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR, DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Misc. Civil Appeal No.143/1999. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the 3 learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 2. The petitioner/original plaintiff in Reg. Civil Suit No.209/99/D has filed the suit for declaration and injunction wherein the plaintiff prayed that the defendants have no right to the suit premises as the premises which they were occupying as licensee was let out to them by way of leave and licence and is subject to natural calamity. According to the petitioner, the suit premises is not in existence at present The said suit was resisted by the respondents/ original defendants on various grounds, including the ground that the defendants are tenants under the Rent Act. In the said suit, the petitioner/original plaintiff moved an application for interim inunction under Order 39 of C.P.C. The learned trial Judge found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the application for interim injunction. That order was carried further by the present appellant/original plaintiff in appeal under Order 43 of C.P.C. The learned appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court passed in the injunction application, against which, the petitioner/org. Plaintiff has preferred this petition under 4 Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/org. Plaintiff submitted that once the premises has come down on account of natural calamity and the constructed portion is not in existence, the tenant has no right over the so called tenanted premises. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the tenancy right of the respondents still continues and the tenancy of the respondent cannot be said to be terminated in any manner whatsoever. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since both the Courts below have rejected the temporary injunction application, this Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, may not interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, at length. I have perused the record. It is required to be noted that the said suit was instituted by the present petitioner as back as in the year 1999 and the same is still pending. The said suit is pending before the trial Court since 1999. By this time practically, almost a decade is passed and the matter is still at interlocutory proceeding stage. 5 It is required to be noted that the question whether the defendants continue to have tenancy right in the suit premises or not, is a question which is required to be decided in the main suit. Considering the fact that interim injunction granted by this Court while admitting the petition is in force for last more than 5 years, instead of going ahead with this petition at this stage, which is not in the interest of either of the parties, it would be just and fair if the parties are asked go ahead with the pending suit before the trial Court and get it disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and till the suit is decided finally by the trial Court, the status quo existing as of today shall be maintained by both, the plaintiff and the defendants. 5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Margao is hereby directed to decide Regular Civil Suit No.209/99/D, before whom the said suit is pending, and dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Writ to be sent to the trial Court forthwith. Both the Counsel assure this Court that they will co-operate with the trial Court in early disposal of the suit. It is clarified that whatever observations 6 made by the trial Court or the appellate Court at the time of deciding the injunction application should be treated to be of tentative in nature and the trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by its earlier observations or the observations made by the appellate Court while deciding the appeal. Rule is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. ssm