1 WP2530/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2530 OF 2010 M/s Mark Movers Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...Respondents Mr Viren Asar i/b M/s Wadia Gandhy and Co. for Petitioners. Mr A.V. Anturkar i/b M/s Motiwala and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2011. 2 WP2530/10 P.C. :- 1] The petitioners, who claim to be a sub- lessee of the original lessee  M/s J.B. Advani and Co.Pvt.Ltd., challenge the communication from the Bombay Port Trust dated 26th July 2010 declining to grant lease of the premises which are admittedly owned by the Bombay Port Trust in favour of the petitioners for the reason that the premises is required by the Bombay Port Trust for its operational use as per the Board s policy. We do not see any material placed on record to doubt the correctness of this statement. Mr Anturkar, learned counsel appearing for the Board stated before us that within a period of one year from the date on which vacant possession of the premises is secured from the petitioners, the Board will put the premises to use for the purpose of its operations. The statement is accepted. In our opinion, as admittedly the property belongs to the Bombay Port Trust and the Trust has made a solemn statement that they will use the property for their own operations, 3 WP2530/10 in our view, it will not be appropriate for this Court to direct in its extraordinary jurisdiction the Trust to grant lease of the property in favour of the petitioners. According to the averments in the petition, the Trust had granted lease of the premises to M/s J.B. Advani and Co.Pvt.Ltd. It is claimed that M/s J.B. Advani and Co.Pvt.Ltd. Granted sub-lease of the property to the petitioners. However, it is clear from the record that what was granted by the lessor was merely a licence. Even after expiry of the licence, the petitioners did not vacate the property. The Trust filed suit against the lessee, that suit was decreed. Execution of the decree was obstructed by the petitioners and its employees. The obstructionist s notice was therefore taken out by the Board, that notice was made absolute in the year 2000. Despite all this, for the last 10 years, the Bombay Port Trust has not been able to take possession and the petitioners are using the property. In our opinion, taking overall view of the matter, no interference in favour of the petitioners is called for in the extraordinary 4 WP2530/10 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. At this stage, a request is made for stay of operation of this order. By this, we have merely rejected the petition. Therefore, no purpose will be served by staying the rejection of the petition order. Stay is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE N.D. DESHPANDE )