1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.733 OF 2010 Benedict Pereira .. Petitioner versus Kishor Kumar Kotian .. Respondent Mr.L.S.Gaikwad for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Small Causes praying for declaration that he was a tenant of the petitioner in respect of a garage premises which are described as the suit premises in the plaint. During the pendency of the said suit, there was a temporary injunction granted protecting possession of the respondent in respect of suit premises. The suit has been dismissed and an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. In the appeal an application for temporary injunction was made by the respondent on which a temporary injunction has been granted by the Appellate Court restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent and from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent over the suit premises. This is the order impugned in the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is 2 already a finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondent has failed to prove that he is a tenant. He submitted that the respondent was allowed to carry on business in the suit premises on the basis of the conducting Agreement which has expired long back and therefore, there was no reason for the Appellate Court to grant temporary injunction especially when the respondent has not succeeded in the suit. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be noted here that the petitioner has filed a suit for possession of the suit premises in this Court. There is an order passed by this Court directing the respondent to go on depositing a sum of Rs.1800/- per month. Moreover, during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the respondent was protected by granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent which was operative right from the year 1993. The appeal is a continuation of the suit and therefore, till the final disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Court has granted temporary injunction. It is obvious that as per the order of this Court, the respondent will have to continue to pay a sum of Rs.1800/- per month. 4. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the discretionary and equitable order passed by the Appellate Court. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J)