1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1488 OF 2010 Shirin S. Rangwala .. Petitioner versus Aditya Garg & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade h/f Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Dubey a/w Mr.J.S.Kini for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd March 2010. P.C.: . The petitioner is the original defendant in a suit filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed a suit for specific performance of alleged Agreement for Sale of immovable property. An Appeal from Order was preferred before this Court by the petitioner arising out of order passed on application for temporary injunction. In Civil Application No.994 of 2008 with Civil Application No.1078 of 2008 filed in the Appeal from Order, by order dated 9th September 2008, this Court permitted the petitioner to allow the suit property to be given on leave and licence basis to a third party for a period of eleven months at a time. A relevant part of the order passed by this Court reads thus: “ ...... Therefore, the appellant Smt.Shirin Rangwalla and another i.e the original defendants in the suit, are hereby permitted to let out the suit property on leave and licence basis without creating any right in the said property, for a period of 11 months at a time, which may be 2 renewed from time to time and subject to the final outcome of the suit, with condition that in case the suit for specific performance is decreed, the defendants therein shall be liable to hand over the actual possession on the date of execution of sale deed. The defendants shall inform the licensee about this direction and shall also incorporate this condition in the agreement of leave and licence. Both these applications stand disposed of accordingly.” 2. It appears that on the basis of the said order, a Leave and Licence Agreement has been executed by the petitioner in favour of the third party. By the impugned order, the trial Court has directed the petitioner to supply a copy of Leave and Licence Agreement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court could not have issued a direction to supply a copy of Leave and Licence Agreement in asmuch as while passing order dated 9th September 2008, this Court has not directed the petitioner to supply a copy. He submitted that the 1st respondent is sufficiently protected by this Court while passing the order dated 9th September 2008. 4. I have considered the submissions. Pending the suit for specific performance filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner-defendant has been permitted to allow third parties to occupy the suit property on Leave and Licence basis. The order of this Court required the petitioner to incorporate certain clauses in the Agreement of Leave and Licence. The trial Court will have to ensure that the Agreement executed by the petitioner is in accordance with order of this Court. Only direction given by the trial Court to 3 the petitioner is to supply a copy of the Leave and Licence Agreement. There is no direction that copy should be given to the 1st respondent. In terms of the impugned order, the petitioner will have to file a true copy of the Leave and Licence Agreement on record of the trial Court. There is no prejudice to the petitioner if a true copy of the Agreement is placed on the record of the trial Court. The 1st respondent can be permitted to take inspection of the copy. As stated earlier, the trial Court will have to ensure that the Agreement is in terms of order passed by this Court. 5. Hence, no interference is called for in power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is rejected. Time of four weeks is granted to the petitioner to file a true copy of the Agreement on record of the trial Court. (A.S.OKA,J)