1 wp9272.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 9272 of 2010 Mr. Rajendra Radhakishan Jaju & anr. ... Petitioners v/s. Mr. Jawaharlal Bhimjibhai Chauhan & ors. ... Respondents Mr. N.P. Deshpande for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Chandrachood for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 16, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th September, 2010 vide which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune has allowed the application below Exhibit 5 in RCS No. 1091/2010 filed by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff was tenant of petitioner-defendant. There is a dispute between the parties. The petitioners contend that the respondent has surrendered his tenancy on 27th March, 2010 whereas the respondent-plaintiff contends that he was forcibly dispossessed on 5th August, 2010. Accordingly, the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for restoration of possession under the Specific Relief Act. In 2 wp9272.10.sxw the said suit the application for temporary injunction was filed. The same is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 2. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was no material on record to show that respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises. He submits that on the contrary the petitioners had placed on record an agreement of leave and licence which was executed on 5th August, 2010. It is, therefore, submitted that learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application. 3. Shri Chandrachud, the learned Counsel on the contrary submits that learned trial Court has by giving sound reasons allowed the application and as such no interference is warranted. 4. Vide the impugned order it can be seen that learned trial Judge finding that it is necessary to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the suit and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation has injucted the present petitioner from creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit. The learned trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons which cannot be said to be 3 wp9272.10.sxw perverse or impossible. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Since it is contended by the petitioner that they have already created third party interest, it is clarified that siince in any event the Leave and License Agreement would come to an end in the month of August 2011 and in deference to the orders passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners would not renew the same. (B.R. GAVAI, J)