1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2135 OF 2010 Sai Samrat Security Service and ors. ..Appellants Vs. Rizvi Builders and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Ashish Chandra Rao i/b.Mr.M.P.Vashi & Associates, for appellants. Mr.A.S.Gavli h/f.Mr.Deepal Lad, for respondents. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : Head Mr.Ashish Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.S.Gavli, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6 th May, 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi in Short Cause Suit No.3295 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit instituted by the appellants. 3] The appellants had instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing their possession in respect of Room No.2, at 94, Kadri Park, S.V.Road, Irla, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai (for short “the suit 777-10.sxw 2 premises”) without following the due process of law. It is the case of the appellants that they are carrying on the business of providing security guards to the private individuals and organisations. As per the request of the respondent, the appellants provided 10 security guards from 1 st June, 1995. As per the conditions of the agreement, the appellants were provided two rooms i.e. the suit premises and room No.5. The room no.5 was used as office and suit premises was used for residential purpose of the security guards. It is the case of the appellants that the amount of Rs.2,93,000/- was due and payable by the respondents in June, 1999. Despite calling upon the respondents to make payment, the respondents failed and neglected to pay the amount. It was further alleged that the respondents tried to dispossess the appellants from the suit premises. On account of this attempt, the negotiations took place between the parties and appellants surrendered room no.5 to the respondents. On this among grounds, the suit was instituted. The respondents filed written statement and refused the allegations. It was contended that the appellants have no right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises. It was further asserted that the respondents settled the bills and obtained receipt thereof and issued letter dated 1 st May, 1998 terminating the services with immediate effect. 4] In support of the irrespective case, the parties led evidence. On behalf of the appellants, Prakash Shinde filed affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief. In paragraph no.12 of the said affidavit he deposed to the following effect:- 12. The defendants have no right to take law in their hands and they have no right to take forcible possession of the premises. At the time when the suit was filed, the contract of providing the security guards was not 777-10.sxw 3 terminated but now it is no longer in existence................” In the cross-examination, he deposed that it is true that he did not issue letter to the respondents till the date of filing of the suit informing that the amount of Rs. 2,93,000/- was due in June, 1999. In paragraph No.18 of the cross-examination, he reiterated that whatever mentioned by him in paragraph 11 of the affidavit, tht the contract is no longer in existence is also correct. 5] The learned trial Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the suit. In paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment it is observed that since the filing of written statement by the respondents, the services of the appellants have been discontinued. If that be so, the appellants have no right to remain in possession of the suit premises and they are not entitled to claim relief of permanent injunction. If any amount is due from the respondents, the appellants have to adopt the appropriate remedy for recovery of the amount. 6] Since the appellants have filed compilation of the documents, I deem it appropriate to dispense with calling the Record and Proceedings of the case under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the contract of providing security guard is subsisting between the parties and they are entitled to retain possession of the suit premises. Considering the admission given by Prakash A. Shinde in his affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief, it is evident fact that the said contract has been terminated. The appellants were in possession of the 777-10.sxw 4 suit premises by virtue of the said contract. When the said contract came to an end, the appellants have no right to remain in possession of the suit premises and they are not entitled to a relief of permanent injunction. Learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the suit. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree. 8] Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of Appeal, no order is necessary on Civil Application. The Civil Application shall stand disposed of. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 777-10.sxw