1 3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2010 Orion Advertisers ...Appellant/Applicant. v. Intercon Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.& ORs. ...Respondents. Mr. Naveen Parekh i/by Ms Hetal Patel,advs., for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr.Sanjay Jain a/w Karan Bhosale and Manish Gitye i/by M/s.Nankani & Associates, advs., for the respondent no.1. Ms Nisha Parmar, adv. For the R.Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Admit. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3739 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2010 Orion Advertisers ...Appellant/Applicant. v. Intercon Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.& ORs. ...Respondents. Mr. Naveen Parekh i/by Ms Hetal Patel, advs., for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr.Sanjay Jain a/w Karan Bhosale and Manish Gitye i/by M/s.Nankani & Associates, advs., for the respondent no.1. Ms Nisha Parmar, adv. For the R.Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Applicant, who is original defendant, had entered into an agreement with the original owner of the building, consisting of ground plus two floors, for putting up hoarding. Under that licence, he continued the hoarding for a long time as the said contract was renewed from time to time between the defendant and original owner of the property. It is contention of the respondent no.1/plaintiff that original owner has sold away two third share in the building including terrace. It is held by the trial Court that plaintiffs have purchased 1/3rd share in the building. The trial Court 3 has also held that the defendant/appellant does not have any right of putting up hoarding on the basis of the alleged contract of 2007 or 2009. Prima-facie, it appears that the applicant could not have the right of putting up hoarding on the said building merely by entering into with contract with the original landlord, who had disposed off his rights in the property in respect of at least one third share. Therefore, if the applicant wants to continue, he will have to enter into contract with the present owners of the property. Therefore, I do not find any prima-facie case in favour of the applicant to allow him to continue the hoarding on the second floor of the building. However, the parties may enter into fresh agreement for allowing defendant/appellant to put up hoarding, during pendency of appeal with permission of this Court. 2 Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)