Wp 5036.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5036/2011 Kamalkumar G.Jalan Petitioner Vs. Nilesh Dilip Thacker Respondent Mr.Rajiv Narulla with Mr.Deepak Rane i/b Mr.Ravikumar Varanasi & Co.for petitioner Mr.Kishor V.Tembe for respondent CORAM-Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J. DATE -1st August,2011. P.C. . As small question is involved,with the consent of both the counsel the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 The petitioner is the landlord, who has let out the suit premises to the grand mother of the respondent. The respondent at present is residing in U.K.. However, he is in possession of the suit premises. It is admitted by both the parties that the respondent has put in his maternal uncle as a care taker/constituted attorney of the suit premises and presently his constituted attorney is looking after the said premises. The respondent has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the present petitioner praying that the Wp 5036.11 2 petitioner should not disturb the possession of the respondent. The application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent/ original plaintiff was rejected by the Small Causes Court on 15/9/2008. So the respondent filed an appeal against the said order and the Appellate Court by its order dated 28/3/2011 allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. Hence this petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the said order. 3 Perused the impugned order. The petitioner has not denied at any stage that grand mother of the respondent namely Indumati was the tenant of the petitioner. The respondent being her grand son claims tenancy. The fact that the articles of the respondents are at present lying in the said house is not denied by the petitioner and the respondent visited from U.K. to India and to the said premises is also not disputed by the petitioner. Thus, the Appellate Court has rightly held that the respondent has established prima facie case that he is in the possession of the suit premises due to his inherited claimed tenancy and, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. Wp 5036.11 3 4 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the affidavit-in-chief is filed by the respondent/original plaintiff in the suit in January,2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the suit be expedited. If the affidavit-in-chief is filed by the original plaintiff then it is the respondent-original defendant to go ahead with the cross examination. Parties to co-operate the Trial Court. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)