1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.270/2008 Shri Mahendra Kedarmal Agrawal and others Vs. Municipal Council, Dhamgangaon Rly. and others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande, J. Dated : 16th February, 2009. Heard Mr. P.A. Kadu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Upadhyalya, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The respondents 2 to 7 are formal parties and as such need not be heard in the appeal. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 passed by Adhoc District Judge-4, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 155/2002 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhamangaon Railway in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/1998 has been allowed. The appellants and respondents 2 to 7 were tenants of respondent no.1 from the year 1989-90. According to respondent no.1, the said tenants did not pay rents which were increased. Apprehending forcible 2 dispossession at the behest of respondent no.1, the appellants and respondents 2 to 7 filed aforementioned suit against respondent no.1. The trial Court decreed the suit and restrained respondent no.1 herein from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the appellants and respondents 2 to 7 from the respective shops. Aggrieved by the decree, respondent no.1 filed appeal to the District Court, Amravati, which by the impugned judgment and decree has been allowed. Mr. Kadu, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the appellant are not entitled to permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff in the said suit. However, lower Appellate Court could not have interfered with the decree passed by the trial Court, which directed the defendant not to dispossess the plaintiffs without following due process of law. According to Mr. Kadu, to this extent the appellants are aggrieved and the decree of the lower Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the appellants have not paid rent due for a considerable length of time to respondent no.1 but the respondent no.1 would not dispossess the appellants herein without following due process of law. The statement is accepted. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.1, 3 the respondent no.1 not to dispossess the appellants without following due process of law. It is made clear that I have not entered into merits of the rival claims and the parties are entitled to resort to whatever remedies available in law. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. C.A. No. 4747/2008 In view of disposal of the appeal, the application is disposed of as infructuous. JUDGE Ambulkar.