1 app295-296 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.295 OF 2007 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. .. Appellants Vs. Annamma Philips and Ors. .. Respondents WITH APPEAL NO.296 OF 2007 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. .. Appellants Vs. T. Mathew and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj Savant with Mr.Shehzad Rasiwala i/b M/s.M.K.Ambalal and Co. for the appellants Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pradip Sancheti, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.S.Purohit, Mr.Shreeniwas Deshmukh and Mr.H.K.Sudhakar i/b M/s.Khaitan and Co. for the respondents CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 22nd FEBRUARY, 2011 2 app295-296 P.C. 1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order because the issues in both these appeals are common. 2. Admittedly, the appellants were in possession of the premises which is the subject matter of these suits as a lessee. The case of the appellants plaintiffs is that the agreements entered into by them with the lessee gives them the right to purchase the lease premises at the expiry of the lease period. This position is strongly disputed by the defendants. The plaintiffs have filed the suits for a decree of specific performance of the contract to transfer the premises to the plaintiffs as owner thereof. In those suits, he has filed notices of motion seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants who admittedly are the owner of the premises from instituting the suit in Small Causes Court, for decree of eviction against the plaintiffs and also for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the property and creating third party interest in the property and also for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. We have perused the record. So far as the facts are concerned, they have been narrated by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment in detail. We therefore, do not propose to narrate the facts in detail. 3 app295-296 4. In our opinion, despite dispute raised by the defendants, even if for the purpose of disposing of these appeals, the case of the plaintiff is accepted at its best, namely that the plaintiffs have an agreement to purchase the premises in their favour at the end of the lease period, then also, in our opinion, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the interim reliefs sought by them in the notices of motion. 5. The learned single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly disposed of these Notices of Motion. The clause in the lease deed on which the plaintiff relies does not change the nature of possession of the plaintiffs at the end of the lease period. Therefore, on expiry of the lease, the nature of possession of the plaintiffs would at best be of a lessee holding over and, therefore, the defendant landlord would be entitled to institute a suit for decree of eviction against the former lessee in Small Causes Court. 6. Merely because the plaintiffs have filed a suit for decree of specific performance, the right of the defendant landlord to institute a suit for decree of eviction against the former lessee does not get curtailed. There is also no possibility of their being any conflicting decrees being passed in suits by two courts because in the suit in the Small Causes Court the question as to whether the plaintiffs have a right to purchase the property is not likely to be decided where his status as a lessee would only be relevant. 4 app295-296 7. Similarly, in the present suit, the only question that will be inquired into is whether there is an agreement in favour of the plaintiffs entitling the plaintiffs to purchase the property and if the courts findings are in favour of the plaintiffs then the second question that may be decided is whether he is entitled to decree for specific performance. 8. The learned single Judge has rightly held that there is not even remote possibility of conflicting finding being recorded in these two suits. 9. So far as question of restraining the defendant landlord from transferring premises is concerned, in our opinion, if the plaintiff is right in contending that he has an agreement to purchase the premises in his favour then that agreement would be available to the plaintiffs even against the subsequent purchaser of the premises and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the interest of the plaintiffs even if the defendant transfers the ownership rights to somebody else. 10. So far as question of grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from disturbing possession of the plaintiffs is concerned, the conduct of the defendants of instituting the suit for decree of eviction against the plaintiffs shows that the defendant has no intention to disturb the possession of the plaintiff except in accordance with law. 11. In these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge impugned in these appeals. Appeals, therefore, are dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 app295-296 12. Notices of Motion No.1487 of 2001 and 1488 of 2001 do not survive. The same are also dismissed as infructuous. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (K.K. TATED, J)