1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8745 OF 2009 Grace Shipping Corporation .. Petitioner Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Kunal Bhanage for the Petitioner. Ms J.A. Sarkhot i/by Shri D.S. Paranjape for Resondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8th January 2010. P.C: I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of the premises referred in Paragraph 1 of the Petition. The Petitioner claims to be the tenant of the 2nd Respondent. The suit is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents for a declaration that the Petitioner is a lawful and protected tenant in respect of the suit premises. A prayer for mandatory injunction is made in the said suit. Interim notice for temporary injunction was taken out by the Petitioner. The said notice was contested by the 1st Respondent – Bank which is the 2nd Defendant in the suit. The notice for injunction was made 2 absolute by the trial Court. In an Appeal preferred by the first Respondent, the Appellate Court has interfered and has set aside the order of temporary injunction. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there was prima facie material on record to show that the Petitioner was in settled possession of the suit premises as the tenant of the 2nd Respondent. He invited my attention to the averments made in the Plaint. He submitted that the Petitioner had approached the Court of Competent Jurisdiction for grant of declaration of tenancy and during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the Petitioner ought to have been protected. He submitted that the Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. He submitted that in the proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent/landlord did not contest the claim of the 1st Respondent. By adopting this method, by allowing the 1st Respondent to obtain the orders from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent/Landlord wants to dispossess the Petitioner though the Petitioner has been protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. He submitted that the suit has been filed to prevent the said attempt on the part of the 2nd Respondent-lndlord. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. At the outset, it must be stated that the Petitioner claims that the 2nd Respondent is the 3 landlord. It is an admitted position that the 1st Respondent (2nd Defendant) is not the landlord. The suit has been filed before a Court exercising a limited jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Before the said Court only a suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to the possession of the tenanted premises is maintainable. Prima facie, it appears to me that, in effect, the Petitioner wants to claim relief even against the 1st Respondent-Bank which is admittedly not the landlord. Prima facie, the suit as against the 1st Respondent bank may not be maintainable. 5. It appears that the Respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs.59 lakhs against the 2nd Respondent. The suit was filed in this Court. In the said suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as Receiver of the properties of the 2nd Respondent. The suit premises forms part of the property described in Schedule-I of the suit filed by the 1st Respondent-Bank. There was an order of temporary injunction granted restraining creation of third party interests in respect of the suit premises. The Court Receiver was directed to take formal possession of the suit premises. Reliance has been placed by the 1st Respondent on further orders passed by this Court. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bombay. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay, appointed its own Receiver. The Defendants in the suit filed by the 1st Respondent were directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pay Rs. 57,21,867.92 ps. along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. A Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of the 1st Respondent herein and 4 on the basis of the said certificate, the 1st Respondent initiated recovery proceedings. When the Petitioner became aware that the suit premises were mortgaged by the 2nd Respondent in favour of the 1st Respondent, he filed intervention application in the recovery proceedings. Two applications were made by the Petitioner which were rejected by the Recovery Officer on merits by an order dated 11the June, 2008. The Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and order has pointed out that the order of Recovery Officer has not been challenged by the Petitioner. 5. It is obvious that the Petitioner has taken recourse to the present declaratory suit with a view to defeat the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay, and the Recovery Officer. Grant of temporary injunction is always a discretionary and an equitable relief. Objection raised by the Petitioner was rejected by the Recovery Officer and the Petitioner has chosen not to challenge the said order. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for grant of discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. 6. The petitioner has has invoked the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)