1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1022 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1022 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1022 OF 2008 Sou. Usha Arjun Gavali & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Shri Shivaji Limbaji Gavali ... Respondent Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 8TH JULY, 2008 : 8TH JULY, 2008 : 8TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Having regard to the reasons recorded by the Court below in Paragraph No. 15 of the impugned judgment, being a possible view expressed at the interlocutory stage, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. The Court below has rightly taken into account the fact that the suit property was occupied by the tenant and the factum of such occupation was reinforced from contemporaneous record such as proceedings filed by the tenants 2 for fixing of price of suit property pursuant to which price of the suit property was fixed; issuance of Section 32-M certificate in the name of tenant; copy of Mutation Entry No.3119 dated 15/3/2005; and under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the tenant had obtained permission from the appropriate authority and sold the property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 4. The argument of the petitioner-defendant that the landlord has executed agreement in favour of the petitioner in earlier point of time on 15th May,2004 does not take the matter any further. It does not establish the fact that the landlord was in possession of the suit property during the relevant period, so as to validly hand over the possession to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that the tenancy of the plaintiffs’ predecessor was terminated or the tenant was dis-possessed by the landlord lawfully. For the time being, at this interlocutory stage, there is enough material on record to suggest that the plaintiff has been put in possession by the tenant in respect of the suit property, which possession will have to be protected. 3 5. Petition dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the protection granted by this Court be continued. I see no reason to accede to that request. 7. Needless to observe that the view expressed by the Court below in the impugned judgment is tentative view expressed in the context of prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the suit. The will proceed in accordance with law. ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)