IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 32 OF 2008 SHRI. HANUMANT U. GOVENKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. GAJENDRA SINGH ... Respondent Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE, J. Date:- 20th November, 2008 ORAL ORDER This appeal is filed by the original defendant aggrieved by an Order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, dated 31.01.2008, restraining the present appellant/defendant from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff without taking recourse to the procedure established by law. While granting temporary injunction against the present appellant, even the plaintiff has been directed to maintain status quo meaning thereby not to cause any damage to the suit property by making any alterations therein. The appellant had put in the respondent/plaintiff in possession of the suit property for carrying on the business of Restaurant and Bar on payment of annual rent licence fee of Rs.1,90,000/-. In the year 2003, a Leave and Licence Agreement came to be executed by the parties under which the exclusive possession of the premises was delivered to the plaintiff by the appellant/defendant. Yet another Agreement was executed on 01.10.2004. It is the case of the Respondent/plaintiff that after expiry of the term prescribed in the Agreement, he continued to occupy the premises so also continued to pay the rent/fees to the appellant. Apprehending an illegal dispossession from the suit premises, the Respondent filed a suit for injunction and therein filed an application for temporary injunction. It is the case of the Respondent that even after the expiry of the term of Lease, he continued to be in possession and has also paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- for the period ending upto September 2008. 2. Per contra, the appellant tried to make out a case that after expiry of the term stipulated in the Agreement dated 01.10.04, the appellant was handed over the possession by the Respondent and thus claims to be in possession of the premises. Various documents were placed on record of the Trial Court by the plaintiff to substantiate the fact that he continued to be in possession. The documents that are placed on the record of the Trial Court include the electricity bills, water consumption bills, various letters received from Agra, purchase bills, Bank letters, Bank records which, prima facie, establish the possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises and goes to further establish that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of Restaurant and Bar in the suit premises. Having found that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie good case coupled with the fact that the plaintiff would have suffered irreparable injury and further the Trial Court having concluded that the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the plaintiff, has proceeded to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. 3. Perused the impugned Order. The same goes to take a possible view of the matter which does not call for any interference in the appeal by this Court. There being no merit in the appeal, the same deserves to be summarily dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that admittedly, no rent/licence fees has been paid after September 2008 and hence submits that the plaintiff need to pay the amount for the subsequent year to the appellant for the period from September 2008 onwards. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff has shown willingness to pay the amount and has handed over two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the learned Counsel for the appellant drawn on Corporation Bank, Chapora Branch, dated 24.11.2008 and 25.12.2008. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that immediately before filing of the suit, the electricity supply and the water supply was disconnected by the appellant. It is also submitted that when an application was moved to the Electricity Department for reconnection of the electric supply, the said application was not entertained and the Department insisted for a NOC from the appellant or an Order from the Court. Same is the position with regard to water connection. 5. In this view of the matter, the Respondent is granted liberty to move the Trial Court by an appropriate application seeking appropriate Orders in the matter of reconnection of the electricity supply and the water supply. In the event, if such an application is made, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and dispose off the same expeditiously. Civil Application is disposed off. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. arp/*