1 caf1602-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1602 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1392 OF 2010 Valerian Anthony Ferreira .. Applicant V/s. Gangaram Jethya Bhandari & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Ms. Kavita Anchar i/b. M/s. M. V. Kini & Co. for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Chitnis for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The applicant is the defendant who is the appellant in the Appeal. The respondents are the original plaintiffs. By the impugned decree passed by the trial Court, the applicant has been restrained from causing any sort of obstruction to the possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit land without following due process of law. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 2 caf1602-10 applicant is that though the name of one Jethya who was the predecessor of the respondents was at one stage shown as protected tenant on the revenue record, he had surrendered the tenancy and that is how the applicant landlord was in possession. The submission is that by virtue of surrender by the predecessor of the respondents, they cannot claim any right, title or interest in the suit premises and they cannot claim to be in possession. 3. On the last date when the application was argued, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant was called upon to produce a copy of the order of surrender recorded under Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant produced the translation of Mutation Entry No.1270 which is not on record of the suit. Even as of today, it is an admitted position that the applicant is not in a position to produce the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal recording surrender of tenancy by the said Jethya. 4. During the pendency of the suit, an order of interim relief granted by this Court on 25th October, 1996 was operative against the applicant. The said order protected the possession of the respondents. Now there is a decree passed by the trial Court 3 caf1602-10 virtually in terms of the interim relief which was operating during the pendency of the suit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instruction of the respondents states that till the disposal of the Appeal, the respondents shall not create any third party rights without prior permission of the Court. The statement is accepted. 6. As possession of the respondents has been protected even during the pendency of the suit, the prayer for grant of stay of execution of the decree for perpetual injunction cannot be granted. The application is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)