1 39 cra.757.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 757 OF 2011 Mrs. Sujata Amit Chakravarty. ... Applicant Versus 1. Hiranand S. Chandani. 2. Ashok Idnani. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Applicant. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. 2 The Applicant is the original Plaintiff. The Applicant filed a suit for injunction restraining the Respondents from evicting her from the suit premises. The suit premises is a residential flat. The case made out by the Applicant is that the suit flat was let out to her at monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 is the owner of the suit premises and the Respondent No.2 is his Constituted Attorney. The suit was contested by the Respondents. It 2 39 cra.757.11 was contended that the Applicant was a licensee and after expiry of the period of licence, she had not vacated. The trial Court held that the Applicant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and therefore, passed a decree restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Applicant without following the due process of law. In the appeal preferred by the Respondents, the Appellate Court has interfered and has dismissed the suit. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the case of the Applicant was that though there was a leave and licence agreement, it was never intended to be acted upon and the suit premises was let out at monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- which was all along accepted by the Respondent No.1. He submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error by relying upon the alleged admissions of the Applicant as regards the leave and licence agreement inasmuch as even after the period provided in the said agreement was over, the Applicant continued to pay rent of Rs.7,000/- per month which was accepted by the Respondent No.1. He submitted that in any event, the 3 39 cra.757.11 only injunction granted was that the Applicant shall not be dispossessed without following due process of law. He pointed out that while setting aside the decree, the same direction has been issued by the Appellate Court. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to modify or set aside the impugned decree. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Grant of perpetual injunction is always a discretionary and equitable relief. The Applicant came to the Court with the plea that she was a tenant. I have perused the examination-in-chief of the Applicant. In paragraph No.3 thereof, she has merely stated that the Respondent No.1 through the Respondent No.2 gave the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. In paragraph No.4, she has specifically stated that the original understanding was that there would be a leave and licence agreement executed between the Applicant and the Respondents. In paragraph No.4, she admitted that the original agreement was drawn for a period of eleven months commencing from 15 th May, 2002 to 14 th April, 2003. She has stated that the Respondents refused to execute 4 39 cra.757.11 the agreement for further period and get the same registered. In paragraph No.5 of her deposition, she has stated that after 15 th April, 2003, no further agreement was executed and the Respondents permitted the Applicant to use and occupy the suit premises and were accepting the rent. 5 In the cross-examination, she was shown the agreement of leave and licence dated 15 th April, 2002. She admitted that the document bears her signature. She admitted that she was paying monthly amount of Rs.7,000/- as per the agreement. Lastly, she stated that her intention was to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement while executing the same and she was faithfully complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Appellate Court has precisely relied upon the aforesaid statements made by the Applicant in the cross-examination. The Applicant admitted that there was an understanding to execute such leave and licence agreement. She accepted the execution of the leave and licence agreement for the period ending with 14 th April, 2003 and in 5 39 cra.757.11 fact, she stated that she intended to comply with the said agreement. In the examination-in-chief, it is not stated that in what manner the tenancy was created after 14 th April, 2003. Thus, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to prove the plea of tenancy. Therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the discretionary decree of perpetual injunction. However, while dismissing the suit, the Appellate Court has observed that the Respondents will have to adopt due process of law for recovering the possession of the suit premises. It is obvious that the Respondents will have to follow due process of law for evicting the Applicant. 6 No case for interference is made out in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision application is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]