(Spl.-H.C.A.S.,C.D.,78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shambhavi Dessai, advocate for the petitioners. Shri D. Pangam, advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S. R.Rivankar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 25th March, 2004 P.C.: By this Writ Petition the petitioners challenge the interlocutory Order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court. After considering the evidence on record, the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents were in possession of the suit premises. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents were in use of the suit premises, i.e. Shop no.31, though, according to them, on leave - 2 - and licence basis. Whether the possession of the respondents was as a lessee or as a licensee is immaterial for the purpose of considering the interlocutory relief. The petitioners cannot take the law in their own hands and unlawfully dispossess the respondents by putting a lock on the premises. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent order passed by the courts below. However, relief would have to be conditional upon the respondents agreeing to pay initial licensee fee of Rs.18,000/- per month from the date on which the keys are handed over by the petitioners to the respondents. Subject to this clarification, the petition is dismissed. D. G. KARNIK, J. mc.