1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6377 OF 2011 Shri Sunil Baburao Pingale ...Petitioner Versus Nashik Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti ...Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik for the Petitioner Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for the Respondent WRIT PETITION NO. 6351 OF 2011 Shri Sahebrao Rambhau Daware ...Petitioner Versus Nashik Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti ...Respondent Mr.M.S.Karnik for the Petitioner Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 2 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. These two petitions can be disposed of by common order as the point involved therein is the same. 2. Petitioner claims to be in possession of the respective premises described in the respective suit filed by the respective petitioner. Each of the petitioner received letter dated 2.11.2009 by which respondents asked the petitioner to remove the structure standing on the plot of land which once upon a time was given to the respective petitioner on the basis of agreement entered into by the respondents with the petitioner. Each of the petitioner rushed to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik and filed Regular Civil Suit No. 450 of 2009 and Regular Civil Suit No.449 of 2009. Application for injunction below Exhibit 5 was rejected in each of the case against which each of the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Appeal in the District Court. The District Judge-3, Nashik, by order dated 26.7.2011 dismissed the respective appeals. Hence these two petitions. I have perused the text of the letter dated 2.11.2009. By the said letter the respondent requested each of the petitioner to remove the structure 3 and return the possession of the open plot of the land to the respondent. I have perused the impugned orders. In my view, the letter dated 2.11.2009 by itself does not in any way indicate to the petitioner that the respondents are likely to take law in their hand or throw off the petitioner from the respective sites. It is on this ground, it would be difficult to accept the case of each of the petitioner. As each of the petitioner could not show apprehension that the respondent would take law in their hand, the view taken by the learned trial Court as well as District Court is right in the matter of the refusal of injunction. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner had drawn my attention to clause 11 of the Agreement under which possession of land was given to the petitioner. The said clause says that after the right to remain in possession of the land in question comes to an end, the respondents would be able to take the possession without adopting to other remedy. If this was the case, surely the respondents could given 8 days notice and thereafter take recourse of clause 11. Instead of doing that, respondents have adopted a soft attitude by writing a letter about vacating the suit land by each of the petitioner. The said 4 letters say no word beyond this. In view of the above, the petitioners were not right in saying that the respondents would use the high handed measures to remove the petitioner. In view of the above, no interference is required. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)