1 wpwp4911-11.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4911 OF 2011 Mr. Ajit Tatebhau Rane Through Power of Attorney holder- Mr. Subhash Bala Parab .. Petitioner Versus Mr. Rajesh Vishnudas Sipahimalani .. Respondent Mr. S. M. Sakhardande i/by Mr. Ranvir S. Shekhawat for the Petitioner Mr. S.G. Karandikar for the respondent CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 2nd September, 2011 P. C. 1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Sakhardande the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karandikar the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-landlord (original defendant) against the order of injunction, dated 21st February, 2011, passed by the Small Causes Court, 2 wpwp4911-11.sxw Mumbai in Misc. Appeal 2-(iv) No. 337 of 2010. 4. The respondent- tenant( original plaintiff) filed a suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 107 of 2009 for declaration as a lawful monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff preferred an application Exh.8 in the said suit for interim injunction and the same was dismissed by the Small Causes Court by order dated 7th July, 2011. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order was allowed by the Appellate Authority of the Small Causes Court by order- "The defendant is injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises, till the suit is decided” (emphasis supplied). The said order is a subject matter of the challenge of this petition. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-landlord has filed an application, bearing Case No. 12 of 2010 under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act for possession against the licensee-respondent herein, in which a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner-landlord, on 16/12/2010 by the competent authority. The said decree is stayed in the revision. However, according to the learned 3 wpwp4911-11.sxw counsel, the order passed by the appellate authority which is under challenge in this petition will come in the way of the petitioner, if the revision is dismissed and the order of the competent authority is upheld. 6. Admittedly, the order passed by the appellate authority is an interim order of injunction, till the suit is decided. In the event, the execution proceedings if taken out, the orders will clash. No injunction till the suit is decided can be granted. The learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff fairly agrees the same and submits that the interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (e) to the Suit as to restraining petitioner-defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises or obstructing/interfering with the use, occupation or enjoyment, without due process of law may be granted. In view of this submission, I find it proper to modify the impugned order and pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice as follows. i. The order of the appellate Court granting interim injunction till the decision of the Suit is set aside. ii. The petitioner-landlord shall not forcibly dispossess 4 wpwp4911-11.sxw the respondent-plaintiff from the suit premises, without due process of law. iii. The petitioner-landlord may take steps to execute the decree passed in Case No. 12 of 2010, in due course of law. iv. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)