1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5013 of 2010 Palus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ... Petitioners versus Mangal Ramchandra Mokashi ... Respondent ... Mr. S.G.Deshmukh i/b Abhieet Kandarkar for the petitioners Mr.Amol Patil for the respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 29th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 8th December 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, granting injunction against the petitioner and the order dated 16th April 2010 passed by Additional District Judge­II confirming the said order in appeal. 3. Admittedly, respondent was a tenant of the petitioners of the suit shop premises. The respondent was carrying on business in the suit premises. According to the respondent on 28th July 2009, the petitioners along with their employees came to the suit premises and 2 forcible evicted the respondent’s son who was then carrying on business therein and locked the suit premises. The stock­in­trade and articles of business of the respondent continued to remain in the suit premises. The respondent therefore filed a suit for injunction and also prayed for a mandatory relief that the lock put up by the petitioners be removed. Both these prayers were granted by the trial court and have been confirmed by the lower appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments in the plaint clearly shows that the respondent was dispossessed from the suit premises. In the circumstances, the prayer mandatory direction of removal of the lock and handing over of the keys of the lock could not have been issued. He submitted that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the possession of the suit premises but had only asked for a permission to keep his goods till she could make alternative arrangements. In the circumstances, the mandatory order could not have been passed. The defence put up by the petitioner that the respondent had voluntarily surrendered the possession of the suit premises has not been believed by the two courts below. I see no reason to interfere in the said finding of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is held that respondent was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant and the goods of the respondent are still lying in the suit premises, it cannot be said that respondent has been dispossessed. Only his entry in the suit premises is prevented by locking of the premises. In my view, the Court has sufficient power even at the interlocutory stage to grant a mandatory injunction during pendency of the suit. This has been so held by the Supreme court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. 3 Coomi Sorab Warden & ors. 1990(2) Bom.C.R.614. The Courts below therefore committed no error in granting the interim mandatory injunction. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)