1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2981 OF 2008 Dr.N.M.Vora Charitable Trust & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Dr.Anup D. Arya .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2996 OF 2008 Jugal Kishore Hiralal Jain & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Anup Dinkar Arya & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Prakash G. Lad for the petitioners Ms.Ranjana Parikh for the respondents CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. The above writ petitions take exception to a common order dated 04.04.08 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai whereby both the appeals came to be 2 dismissed. The appeals were filed by the landlords of the suit premises challenging a common order of the trial court dated 02.02.08 passed in two interlocutory applications in two different suits filed between the same parties against one another i.e. one R.A.E. suit for eviction by landlord and one R.A.D. suit for declaration by tenant. 2. The Trial Court by its common interlocutory order allowed the application of the tenant, the Respondent herein and restrained the landlords, the petitioners herein, from causing any obstruction and/or disturbance in respondent’s use of the suit premises and has also restrained the landlords from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff’s staff members in respect of the suit premises and entering and/or preventing entry of visiting doctors, patients and visitors to the suit premises. The landlords are also restrained from posting security guards at the entries of the suit premises causing any obstruction and/or preventing entry of visiting doctors, patients and their visitors, shift members from coming to the suit premises. The Trial Court, by the same order 3 dismissed the application of the petitioners interalia for an injunction restraining the respondent and his agents and servants from obstructing the use of common passage and from creating third party rights. Both these orders have been upheld in appeal which has resulted in filing of the present Writ Petitions by the landlords. 3. The suit premises is a tenanted premises and it was admittedly let out to one Dr.Rajniben Arya in 1960. The said Dr.Rajniben Arya was using the said premises for residential as well as for running nursing / maternity home. The said Dr.Rajniben Arya ultimately died on 27/12/90. The respondent is the son of the deceased Dr.Rajniben Arya, who is also a Doctor and has completed his Master Degree from Bombay University in 1996 and has gone to U.K. for further studies in the year 2003. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent is well settled in U.K. and that the suit premises is 4 sought to be used by the outsiders on the basis of power of attorney which is executed by the respondent particularly after the demise of the father of the respondent, who expired on 16.03.07. He therefore, contended that the outsiders which includes the patients and visiting Doctors should not be allowed in the suit premises, particularly when admittedly no family member of the deceased tenant is using the premises in question and that the order of injunction in the Respondents application has been wrongly granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the appeal court and that the application of the petitioners ought not to have been rejected. 5. In my view, considering the fact that the Nursing Home is being run from last many years, the contention of the petitioners that the outsiders which include the visiting doctors and patients should all of a sudden be restrained from entering the suit premises cannot be accepted. The petitioners, on the other hand, are required to be restrained from obstructing and/or disturbing the possession, and/or user thereof of the premises in 5 question by the Respondent and his agents and servants, patients and Doctors, until the suits are decided finally. 6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the appeal court of the Small Causes Court, as also other material on record. I find no illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned order so as to set aside the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the facts of the case, I deem it fit to direct the Trial Court to hear R.A.E.Suit Nos.1873 of 2007 and 680/1093 of 2007 expeditiously, as per its convenience and reasonable convenience of the parties. 7. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.)