1 29-wp-3239-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj WRIT PETITION NO.3239 OF 2011 Shri K. M. Mohammad Moinuddin .. Petitioner. V/s. Shri Noor Mohammad A. J. Miyaji & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Khan Javed Akhtar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kunal Bhanage, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 By order dated 12th July, 2011, notice was issued indicating that the Writ Petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are served and are appearing through Advocate. Hence, Petition is taken up for hearing on board forthwith, by consent of the Advocates. 2 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 29-wp-3239-2011.sxw 3 In a suit for eviction filed by the landlords, the Trial Court has granted injunction which reads thus:- (i) Present application of the Plaintiffs is being allowed. (ii) Defendant or any other person on behalf of the Defendant are being restrained till disposal of the suit from sub-letting the suit shops to any third person or from transferring the tenancy rights in respect of said shops in the name of any third person. (iii) Both parties to bear their own costs. 4 The Appeal filed by the Petitioners has been dismissed by the Appellate Bench. Hence, Writ Petition is filed. 5 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that as on the date of filing of the suit, the premises were not in existence since the Petitioner had vacated the premises for the purpose of repairs and reconstruction by the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board. It is further submitted that the conduct of the Plaintiff disentitled them from granting any such injunction. The learned Advocate for Petitioner states that the observations made by the Courts below are erroneous and states that when the suit itself is not maintainable, said injunction could not have been granted. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 supports the order passed by the Courts below and states that the apprehension continues and the apprehension is clear in view of the fact that the injunction granted for avoiding multiplicity of judicial proceedings, is being 3 29-wp-3239-2011.sxw opposed by filing Appeal and Writ Petition. 6 I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The fact that the landlord-tenant relationship existed is not disputed. The case of the Petitioner-tenant that the premises were not in existence at the time of filing of the suit, is a matter which will have to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. It is not the case that the premises are completely destroyed, but the case is that the premises were in dilapidated condition and, therefore, demolished by the board for the purpose of repairs and reconstruction. If that be so, the question whether the tenancy survives or not will have to be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of trial. At the interlocutory stage, the Courts below have granted an injunction so as to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. The submission of the Advocate for Petitioner regarding conduct of the Plaintiffs has also been considered in proper perspective by the Appellate Bench, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned Judgment and Order, I do not see any perversity in the said finding. No case is made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 Writ Petition is dismissed. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)