1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9958 OF 2009 Shivaji Tukaram Nikam & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Tasgaon Vividh Karyakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Maryadit .. Respondents Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The controversy in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court in Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Tayebbhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwalla, 1996 (4) Bom. C.R. 414, wherein R.M. Lodha, J. (as he then was) has held that destruction of the tenanted structure does not extinguish the tenancy and the right of occupation of the tenant under the contract of tenancy continues to exist between the parties. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that the suit premises consisted of land and structure thereon and was in 2 possession of the respondent as a tenant. In fact, the petitioners had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.186 of 1997 against the respondent for possession and the same was withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioners that the structure was dilapidated and was destroyed by forces of nature and therefore the tenancy had come to an end. This contention cannot stand in view of the decision of this Court. 4. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner landlord and claimed two reliefs. It firstly prayed for a relief of injunction against unlawful dispossession and secondly prayed for permission to repair the structure which is alleged to be in existence on the date of filing of the suit. Assuming that the structure has been destroyed whether by natural forces or otherwise, it is undisputed that the respondent continues to be in possession of the land. The appellate court has therefore rightly granted an injunction against the unlawful possession without due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)