1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.761 OF 2010 M/s.Prakash Securities Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant V/s L.I.C.of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Swapnil Bangun i/by M/s.S.Ashwinikumar & Co.for the Appellant. Mr.Harihar Bhave with Ms.Manisha Pant i/by M/s.Bhave & Co.for Respondents. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 20th September, 2010. P.C. s 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 passed by learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.187 of 2010. By that order, learned trial Judge partly allowed the said notice of motion. Learned trial Judge rejected prayer for restoration of possession of the premises in question and expedited hearing of the appeal. He further restrained the Respondents from creating third party interest until further orders. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. He further submitted that the Respondent had issued notice on 31st August, 2005 terminating tenancy of the appellant on the ground that during the monthly building inspection carried out from April 2004 to September 2004 the said premises were found in locked condition. He submitted that as per the terms and conditions of tenancy, in TC No.1512 the appellant has not committed breach of any of those conditions. He submitted that the Respondents were not justified in issuing notice on 31st August, 2005. He therefore prayed 2 that the possession obtained by the Respondents may be restored to the Appellant. 3. On the other hand, Mr.Bhave, learned counsel for Respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that though the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 31st August, 2005, no reply was given by the Appellant. Ultimately the Estate Officer passed order on 27th November, 2009 ordering eviction of the appellant. Against this order the appellant preferred Misc.Appeal No.10 of 2010 before the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. However, there was delay of 37 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed by Appellant in support of notice of motion, the Appellant averred in paragraph No.8 as under:- “I further state that on or about 14th January, 2010 when the staff members of the Appellant company had gone to the premises it was realized that the lock of the Appellant, put to the door of the premises, was broken and it was replaced by a new lock which had a seal applied on it. No notice was pasted.” 4. On 25th January, 2010 the Court on the application made by the Respondents herein to file reply to the application for condonation of delay, restrained the Respondents from creating any third party interest. On 8th February, 2010 Respondents filed reply to the application for condonation of delay. In that reply, Respondents specifically contended that the possession of the property in question was taken on 13th January, 2010. By order dated 11th February, 2010 learned trial Judge condoned delay and at the same time vacated the status quo order. The order dated 11th February, 2010 was not impugned by the appellant. What is impugned is the order dated 4th March, 2010 whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer for restoration of possession. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant preferred appeal which was beyond 37 days. Even in the affidavit filed by Appellant on 21st January, 2010 in support of the notice of motion, in paragraph No.8 appellant himself 3 came out with the case that the lock put by him was removed and was replaced by the lock put by Respondents. It is therefore obvious that on his own showing, the Respondent took possession of the premises in question. It is in these circumstances, the learned trial Judge on 25th January, 2010 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Ultimately on 8th February, 2010 learned trial Judge vacated the order of status quo. The said order, as noted earlier was not challenged by the appellant. In view of this, I do not find that the learned trial Judge committed any error. By passing the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has protected interest of both sides and hence, the said order does not call for any interference. In the result, appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)