spb/- 1 wp8675-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8675 OF 2010 Antarbharati Shikshan Mandal ... Petitioner. V/s. Prabha Prafulls Doshi & Anr. ... Respondents. ­­­ Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2. ­­­­­ CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This petition is directed against an interlocutory order and hence calls for no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that no interference is called for, for the reasons indicated below. 3 Admittedly, the respondents (original plaintiffs) are the owners of the suit property having purchased it under a registered sale deed. The petitioner, who is a tenant, started carrying out a permanent construction without a consent of the respondents. According to the petitioner, which is a public trust, it was not aware that the property was sold by the original owner to the respondents and therefore, the petitioner had not taken a permission from the respondents. The respondents became owners of the property by a registered instruments of sale and registration amounts to notice under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, spb/- 2 wp8675-10.sxw contention that the petitioners were not aware of the change of the ownership cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the petitioners had only intimated to the original landlord their intention but the original landlord had not given any written permission to the petitioners and therefore, also the petitioners could not have carried out the new construction. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was only carrying out repairs of a wall, which had fallen. This was being done for the safety of the children studying in the school. Counsel for the respondents however, submitted that what was being done was not a re­construction of a wall which is alleged to have fallen down but it was completely a new construction with iron bars/ girders and beams. He submitted that a court commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises. The court commissioner’s report also shows that the construction is a new permanent construction and not a repairs. The learned counsel tenders for my inspection a few photographs of the premises under construction which clearly shows that prima facie a massive construction is going on and not the repairs to the wall as alleged. 5 In the circumstances, the appellate court committed no error in granting injunction, restraining the petitioner from carrying out construction. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. However, the hearing of the suit is expedited. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] ..... spb/- 3 wp8675-10.sxw